Sspx: Preamble Signed

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1335240504' post='2422503']What is very important in the current context also is to look at the other communities similar to the SSPX which have reconciled with Rome in recent years. Those communities have not been allowed "to agree to disagree". On the contrary as Mgr. Pozzo's recent letter to one of those communities shows there really is no leeway to continue criticism of Vatican II. I am referring to the Institute of the Good Shepherd. During a recent canonical visitation of the community it was found that some there are still persisting in criticism of Vatican II. Pozzo's letter states: " Rather than criticize, however rightly and constructively, the Vatican II, educators should channel their efforts in conveying the whole of the Church teachings, focussing on the hermeneutics of renovation within continuity and starting, as a base, from the integrity of the Catholic doctrine as exposed in the catechism of the Catholic Church”.
I think it is hard to see how the SSPX can be handled any differently without creating a double standard.

S.
[/quote]

From the agreement between The Institute of the Good Shepherd and the Vatican.

"The Holy See granted the members of the new institute exclusive use, as the institute’s own rite, of the earlier form of the Roman liturgy. For their part, each of the founding members personally undertook to respect the authentic Magisterium of the See of Rome with “complete fidelty to the infallible Magistrium of the Church”. [b]The members of the institute may engage in a criticism of the Second Vatican Council that is serious and constructive and in accord with Pope Benedict’s address of 22 December 2005 to the Roman Curia, while recognizing that it is for the Apostolic See to give the authentic interpretation of the Council.[/b]”

Source: [url="http://frat.canalhistorique.free.fr/200609/Communique%20Bon%20Pasteur.htm?num=126344"]http://frat.canalhis....htm?num=126344[/url]

Edited April 25, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[dominicansoul]

...and the SSPX debate continues once again on phatmass.....


I have a question...

...if the SSPX fails to come to an agreement with the Vatican, does that then mean they will become schismatics???


[size=8][font=georgia,serif]KEEP PRAYING, PEEPS! [/font][/size]

[qfnol31]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1335391932' post='2423370']
...if the SSPX fails to come to an agreement with the Vatican, does that then mean they will become schismatics???
[/quote]According to Father Z a couple months ago, yes. I think he's right on this point.

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1335391006' post='2423366']
From the agreement between The Institute of the Good Shepherd and the Vatican.

"The Holy See granted the members of the new institute exclusive use, as the institute’s own rite, of the earlier form of the Roman liturgy. For their part, each of the founding members personally undertook to respect the authentic Magisterium of the See of Rome with “complete fidelty to the infallible Magistrium of the Church”. [b]The members of the institute may engage in a criticism of the Second Vatican Council that is serious and constructive and in accord with Pope Benedict’s address of 22 December 2005 to the Roman Curia, while recognizing that it is for the Apostolic See to give the authentic interpretation of the Council.[/b]”

Source: [url="http://frat.canalhistorique.free.fr/200609/Communique%20Bon%20Pasteur.htm?num=126344"]http://frat.canalhis....htm?num=126344[/url]
[/quote]Criticism here is more critique. Criticism has a negative connotation that was never present in any of the Holy Father's words.

That is, while the Society is permitted to critique the theological value of Vatican II, they are not allowed to criticize it.


From a series of Vatican Communiques:
[quote]"During the meeting of 14 September 2011 between Cardinal William Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and president of the Pontifical Commission 'Ecclesia Dei', and Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the Society of St. Pius X, the latter was presented with a Doctrinal Preamble, accompanied by a Preliminary Note, as a fundamental basis for achieving full reconciliation with the Apostolic See. This defined certain doctrinal principles and criteria for the interpretation Catholic doctrine, which are necessary to ensure faithfulness to the Church Magisterium and 'sentire cum Ecclesia'.

"The response of the Society of St. Pius X to the aforesaid Doctrinal Preamble, which arrived in January 2012, was examined by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith before being submitted to the Holy Father for his judgement. Pursuant to the decision made by Pope Benedict XVI, Bishop Fellay was, in a letter delivered today, informed of the evaluation of his response. The letter states that the position he expressed is not sufficient to overcome the doctrinal problems which lie at the foundation of the rift between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X.

"At the end of today's meeting, moved by concern to avoid an ecclesial rupture of painful and incalculable consequences, the superior general of the Society of St. Pius X was invited to clarify his position in order to be able to heal the existing rift, as is the desire of Pope Benedict XVI".[/quote]

[quote]"In order to put the Holy Father's instructions into effect, a joint study commission was set up, composed of experts from the Society of St. Pius X and from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who met in Rome on eight occasions between October 2009 and April 2011. Their discussions, which aimed to identify and study the essential doctrinal difficulties in the controversial issues, had the result of clarifying the positions of the two sides and their respective motivations.

"While bearing in mind the concerns and demands presented by the Society of St. Pius X about protecting the integrity of the Catholic faith against Vatican Council II's 'hermeneutic of rupture' with Tradition (a theme addressed by Pope Benedict XVI in his address to the Roman Curia on 22 December 2005), the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith maintains that the fundamental basis for achieving full reconciliation with the Apostolic See is the acceptance of the text of the Doctrinal Preamble, which was handed over during a meeting on 14 September 2011. The Preamble defines certain doctrinal principles and criteria for the interpretation Catholic doctrine, which are necessary to ensure faithfulness to the Church Magisterium and 'sentire cum Ecclesia'. At the same time, it leaves open to legitimate discussion the examination and theological explanation of individual expressions and formulations contained in the documents of Vatican Council II and later Magisterium.[/quote]

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1335389013' post='2423354']
KoC, no one here has made any such claim. The bishops are not in schism because their excommunications were revoked. The fraternity itself is also not in schism for other reasons, partly because they were never in schism.[/quote]

Yes, they have. Read Skinzo posts, as well as Totus Tuus. Both argue that in whatever way the SSPX is in schism. Totus uses her very limited personal experiences but employs words like "all", and how generations of children dont even know the Pope, when talking of the faithful who attend the SSPX. Skinzo has used the Motu Proprio of John Paul II to argue that the SSPX is in schism. As well as the words of Card. Hoyos that he believes play in his favor.

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1335389013' post='2423354']
That doesn't mean that some of the members don't wish that they were in schism. I'm completely for the full restoration of the society in into society. I also want them to want to be fully restored without forcing it upon them. The head of the order wants full restoration as do many members. Some don't and maintain a schismatic attitude toward the Holy Father. Anyone who has spoken on this issue has spoken to this attitude directly.[/quote]

Ok, so what? Unless we are now gods we cant judge which individuals of the SSPX wish they were in schism. Even more so when everyone here so far is speaking in vast generalities about persons who cannot defend themselves against personal attacks against their character.

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1335389013' post='2423354'] am completely confident in the Holy Father's work and very aware of all public declarations made by him and those around him on this very matter. I assure you that I am not twenty years behind.
[/quote]

No you just hold the contrary opinion opposite of the current stance of the current Pope and those he appoints to express his stance. The bishops were never in schism, even before the excommunication were lifted.

Edited April 25, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[qfnol31]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1335392479' post='2423372']Yes, they have. Read Skinzo posts, as well as Totus Tuus. Both argue that in whatever way the SSPX is in schism. Totus uses her very limited personal experiences but employs words like "all", and how generations of children dont even know the Pope, when talking of the faithful who attend the SSPX. Skinzo has used the Motu Proprio of John Paul II to argue that the SSPX is in schism. As well as the words of Card. Hoyos that he believes play in his favor.

Ok, so what? Unless we are now gods we cant judge which individuals of the SSPX wish they were in schism. Even more so when everyone here so far is speaking in vast generalities about persons who cannot defend themselves against personal attacks against their character.[/quote]I'm pretty sure they're saying the same things I'm saying. Again, I know many people from the Society by virtue of my wife being a two-time former member. I also knew many in undergraduate. Every individual with whom I spoke took an attitude of wanting to be in schism because they did not trust the current Magisterium. It isn't a personal attack to say this. This is a reflection of the person every much as saying that many Protestants don't want to be Catholic.

TT and Skinzo have not said all, though a great number of these members hold that attitude. Also, Skinzo and I both argued that something special happened with the bishops that has now been revoked (except with the dead Archbishop, whose soul we can only trust to the mercy of God). Skinzo said that the society has no canonical mission, but that's different than saying they are in schism. I know many members and these members reject the Church as she stands today. Ergo, they hold a schismatic attitude. This number that I know and that espouse such a point of view isn't negligible. A person can be schismatic without being in formal schism (a very Thomistic distinction).

Furthermore, there is still some point of disagreement between Pope Benedict and Bishop Fellay. If not, then they would already be fully reconciled. As it stands, they are not.

[quote]No you just hold the contrary opinion opposite of the current stance of the current Pope and those he appoints to express his stance. The bishops were never in schism, even before the excommunication were lifted.
[/quote]I'm sure I don't. The Holy Father lifted the excommunications. He never called them null and invalid.

Also, you're a few years behind. Cardinal Levada is in charge now and Cardinal Hoyos is retired. Ergo, Cardinal Levada (whose opinion I've expressed quite clearly above) is the most important at this time. Cardinal Hoyos is a few years out of date.

Edited April 25, 2012 by qfnol31

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1335392094' post='2423371']
Criticism here is more critique. Criticism has a negative connotation that was never present in any of the Holy Father's words.[/quote]

So you say but it is the word that the Holy See and the Institute of the Good Shepherd chose and agreed to employ in there agreement. Also critique properly understood is the act of criticizing.

Lastly the SSPX will be in Schism when and if the Holy See declares it to be so and not a moment sooner.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1335393173' post='2423375']
I'm pretty sure they're saying the same things I'm saying. Again, I know many people from the Society by virtue of my wife being a two-time former member. I also knew many in undergraduate. Every individual with whom I spoke took an attitude of wanting to be in schism because they did not trust the current Magisterium. It isn't a personal attack to say this. This is a reflection of the person every much as saying that many Protestants don't want to be Catholic.
[/quote]

If you and others want to judge these individuals that is your business.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1335393319' post='2423378']
So you say but it is the word that the Holy See and the Institute of the Good Shepherd chose and agreed to employ in there agreement. Also critique properly understood is the act of criticizing.

Lastly the SSPX will be in Schism when and if the Holy See declares it to be so and not a moment sooner.
[/quote]Again, no one has said they are or necessarily will be in schism. The Holy Father is obviously the final authority on such matters.

The Holy See said discussion in their communique, which I reproduced above. I'll try to find the original, but there is no negative connotation involved. You can critique something without holding a negative view of it. If Bishop Fellay holds a negative view of the Second Vatican Council as a whole (or maybe in part), then I don't see reconciliation happening. As it stands, I know many people who reject the council in its entirety and such people are at least schismatic.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1335393401' post='2423379']
If you and others want to judge these individuals that is your business.
[/quote]It isn't a judgment to repeat the words and thoughts of other people that have been directly expressed. It's not a judgment in the sense that you're using the term. Judgment implies some sort of rational response on my part that simply isn't there.

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1335392094' post='2423371']
According to Father Z a couple months ago, yes. I think he's right on this point.
[/quote]

i have an acquaintence who is a follower and only goes to sspx chapels, so... im very concerned for her...

[qfnol31]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1335395571' post='2423405']


i have an acquaintence who is a follower and only goes to sspx chapels, so... im very concerned for her...
[/quote]Have hope. I think Bishop Fellay is doing good work here.

Edited April 25, 2012 by qfnol31

[Skinzo]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1335391006' post='2423366']
From the agreement between The Institute of the Good Shepherd and the Vatican.

"The Holy See granted the members of the new institute exclusive use, as the institute’s own rite, of the earlier form of the Roman liturgy. For their part, each of the founding members personally undertook to respect the authentic Magisterium of the See of Rome with “complete fidelty to the infallible Magistrium of the Church”. [b]The members of the institute may engage in a criticism of the Second Vatican Council that is serious and constructive and in accord with Pope Benedict’s address of 22 December 2005 to the Roman Curia, while recognizing that it is for the Apostolic See to give the authentic interpretation of the Council.[/b]”

Source: [url="http://frat.canalhistorique.free.fr/200609/Communique%20Bon%20Pasteur.htm?num=126344"]http://frat.canalhis....htm?num=126344[/url]
[/quote]

I am not sure what your point is. The link you provide goes to a site that is entirely in French. I will however say that I wholeheartedly accept the results of the Institute's recent apostolic visitation and I hope they comply with the Roman directives in that regard.

S.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Skinzo

[XIX]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1334717988' post='2419975']
Yeah, the FSSPX really needs to join the rest of us.
[/quote]
The Catholic Church needs a healthy SSPX as well.

[Aloysius]

to be honest, I hope the Institute of the Good Pastor asks for and gets clarification from Rome on this issue. demanding that they teach seminarians their doctrines from the Catechism and Vatican II sounds much different than the agreement they were offered before. if Benedict's vision that there is no rupture and the conciliar way represents a different pastoral approach of the same unchanging doctrine is to be taken seriously, then the Institute of the Good Shepherd should be permitted to teach entirely from pre-conciliar sources if that is in the pastoral interests of the people they are ministering to. not that teaching the good parts and how to best traditionally interpret the Council is not good, but I'm not very impressed with the apparent Roman bait-and-switching here, and you can bet the SSPX and the Orthodox will pay attention to such things. that's just my impression. of course, the visitation is just a report given to the Pope, whether any action is actually taken from Rome to enforce these suggestions will be interesting to see.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1335419493' post='2423519']
to be honest, I hope the Institute of the Good Pastor asks for and gets clarification from Rome on this issue. demanding that they teach seminarians their doctrines from the Catechism and Vatican II sounds much different than the agreement they were offered before. if Benedict's vision that there is no rupture and the conciliar way represents a different pastoral approach of the same unchanging doctrine is to be taken seriously, then the Institute of the Good Shepherd should be permitted to teach entirely from pre-conciliar sources if that is in the pastoral interests of the people they are ministering to. not that teaching the good parts and how to best traditionally interpret the Council is not good, but I'm not very impressed with the apparent Roman bait-and-switching here, and you can bet the SSPX and the Orthodox will pay attention to such things. that's just my impression. of course, the visitation is just a report given to the Pope, whether any action is actually taken from Rome to enforce these suggestions will be interesting to see.
[/quote]

Actually, the Institute was only approved on an experimental basis, and for a five year period only. That five year period expired in September 2011.

[url="http://la.revue.item.free.fr/commission_pontifical.htm"]http://la.revue.item..._pontifical.htm[/url]


S.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Skinzo

[Skinzo]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1335392094' post='2423371']
According to Father Z a couple months ago, yes. I think he's right on this point.

Criticism here is more critique. Criticism has a negative connotation that was never present in any of the Holy Father's words.

That is, while the Society is permitted to critique the theological value of Vatican II, they are not allowed to criticize it.


From a series of Vatican Communiques:
[/quote]

It's clear also from the statutues setting up the Institute of the Good Shepherd that its "constructive criticism" is subject to moderation by Rome. It's about [b]obedience. [/b]It's also about Rome's authority to interpret Vatican II.
Take note, SSPX.

S.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Skinzo

[Skinzo]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1335393319' post='2423378']

Lastly the SSPX will be in Schism when and if the Holy See declares it to be so and not a moment sooner.
[/quote]

Actually, Abp. Fellay says Hoyos told him in person in June of 2008 that he was now a schismatic:

"[b]Up to now, I stated that you were not schismatics, but henceforth I will no longer be able to say so"[/b]


[url="http://www.summorumpontificum.net/2008/09/concerning-ultimatum-from-cardinal.html"]http://www.summorump...m-cardinal.html[/url]

S.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Skinzo

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1335393570' post='2423384']
It isn't a judgment to repeat the words and thoughts of other people that have been directly expressed. It's not a judgment in the sense that you're using the term. Judgment implies some sort of rational response on my part that simply isn't there.
[/quote]

It is judgement because we or you guys are judging them to be schismatic. It is also gossip.

[KnightofChrist]

For those who respect Fr. Z here is his take on the status of the SSPX.





[quote]

[b] [url="http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/09/quaeritur-is-the-sspx-in-schism-or-not/"]QUAERITUR: Is the SSPX in schism or not?[/url][/b]



[indent][background=transparent]
Greetings! I am writing in order to ask you [b]abou the SSPX’s canonical status[/b]. I’ve heard that they [b]certianly are in schism[/b], as Bishop ___ (my bishop) said, yet I’ve also heard from you that the[b] Prefect of the Pontical Commision Ecclesia Dei has said that they’re not[/b]. My question is as follows: would there need to be any talks going on between them and Rome [b]if they are not in schism[/b]? Isn’t the point, as Pope Benedict XVI said, something about…”[b]as they discover the path to full communion[/b]“? First, that seems to imply that they are not in full communion with the Chuch. And, as noted earlier, it seems like the whole purpose of the [b]Vatican-SSPX discussions is to bring them into communion[/b]. Do you see the seeming conflicts? Nevertheless, I’d refuse to associate or attend their Masses until they learn to trust the Magisterium and learn the humility to keep their minds and hearts publicly and officially in syncronization which that of the One Chuch.[/background][/indent][color=#333333][font=Georgia,]
Since the Pontifical Commission “[i]Ecclesia Dei[/i]” has competence in this area, I will opt for the position of the PCED rather than the opinion Bishop of X diocese.[/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Georgia,]
The situation is confusing. In the 1988 Motu Proprio [i]Ecclesia Dei adflicta[/i] Pope John Paul used the word “[i]schism[/i]“. It looks like a schism, to be sure. [u]But[/u] official[u]s[/u] of the PCED have affirmed over the last few years that while Archbishop Lefebvre’s actions in 1988 were schismatic acts, the SSPX did not in fact go into schism. I don’t really understand that, but [u]I will take the PCED’s word on this.[/u][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Georgia,]
What we need to do is pray pray pray that the SSPX will accept the CDF’s “Doctrinal Preamble” and some eventual canonical structure which could be offered to them.[/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Georgia,]
[u]I suppose that now all sort of people will jump in with over-the-top declarations that they know with certainty how wrong the Holy See is, the Pope is, the SSPX is.[/u] [b]Ho hum.[/b] Someone will forget to exercise reason and self-editing, I will delete comments and ban a couple people, and the pattern will repeat itself. Oh well… forest fires renew forests too.[/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Georgia,]
[b]Benedict XVI is the Pope of Christian Unity.[/b][/font][/color]

[/quote]

[dominicansoul]

[quote]
The situation is confusing.
[/quote]

He got that right!


After reading Fr. Z's segment, it does look like, indeed, the SSPX would be officially in schism if they do not come to agree with the Vatican after all this.

I trust Pope Benny will work extra hard to preserve unity. May the Holy Spirit lead and direct him and the SSPX willfully obey him...