SSPX to Regularize?

[Nihil Obstat]

3 minutes ago, Peace said:

So are you.

I am in here taking about the status of the sspx now and moving forward, and you came in with a baseless personal insult. I respect and rather like you, but I do not love being insulted by you.

[Sponsa-Christi]

4 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I do not think it is wishful thinking. In general the idea frightens them. It fractured them before and they are only just recovered from that issue. It will take courage on their part to step up to this.

Yes, this is a good point. But what I meant was that the "wishful thinking" part was the idea that the Pope would work out an arrangement that didn't involve making sure that the SSPX and Vatican were on the same page in terms of ecclesiology and doctrine. I can see where the Pope might be willing to have some discussion about the content and wording of a new "doctrinal preamble," but I don't think he would ever dispense with this step altogether.

This is the specific quote that made me think, "Eh, their hopes might be a bit too high...":

"On April 10, Bishop Bernard Fellay, the current superior general of the SSPX, said before some 4,000 pilgrims in the French city of Le Puy-en-Velay that there is a “profound change” in the society’s relationship with the Vatican, triggered by the “dire situation” of the Church: “In the midst of this disorder … comes this whisper: ‘No, we cannot force you to accept the Council.’ They perhaps will not say it so clearly, but they did indeed say it to us after all.”

I.e., I don't think there's actually any way the Church would or could accommodate the SSPX without the Society accepting, at least in basic principle, the legitimacy of Vatican II.

[Peace]

1 minute ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I am in here taking about the status of the sspx now and moving forward, and you came in with a baseless personal insult. I respect and rather like you, but I do not love being insulted by you.

I took what you wrote as an insult. You are talking about a group that is known for traditionalism, and you refer to them as holding up the authentic Catholic faith. The implication is that those of us who do not adhere to that particular brand of Catholicism are not authentically Catholic.

But perhaps I misread you. What is authentic Catholicism and why are the SSPX a massive force for it?

[Amppax]

My own thoughts on this point are somewhat hazy. On the one hand, I have heard increasing chatter about this happening. When the Pope extended faculties for confession, in my mind, I think he signaled that it is his intention to regularize them. Or at the very least keep going in that direction. I doubt at the end of the year this permission will be taken away. So that gives my some hope that reconciliation is coming. 

On the other hand, statements like "we don't have to accept the Council" are cause for concern. Like Sponsa and Benedictus, I doubt that will fly. I suppose it all comes down to what is meant by accepting or not accepting the council. Personally, I think the best reading of the  council is through the lens of tradition; what's been called the "hermeneutic of continuity." I think, personally, that even the problematic sections of NA and DH (the latter especially), can be harmonized with tradition. 

All in all, a positive sign, in that it seems that they do desire regularization; it remains to be seen what that will look like. I for my part will be praying that they reconcile, and in a way that doesn't lead to further division and discord. As a friend of mine said to me, "what good is regularizing if it's just a status on a page, and not a true reunion?" It calls for humility on all sides. 

[Nihil Obstat]

22 minutes ago, Peace said:

I took what you wrote as an insult. You are talking about a group that is known for traditionalism, and you refer to them as holding up the authentic Catholic faith. The implication is that those of us who do not adhere to that particular brand of Catholicism are not authentically Catholic.

But perhaps I misread you. What is authentic Catholicism and why are the SSPX a massive force for it?

No interpretation needed, authentic Catholicism is simply Catholicism without compromise. No equivocating on doctrine or on practice.

Sure there are doctrinal discussions which are ongoing, but again, they teach nothing that the Church did not teach before. If it was Catholic before it is Catholic now.

I am not saying you have to be in lockstep with the Society. But they are Catholic and they teach Catholic doctrine and morals. That is what we need in such chaotic times. Regularized, they cannot be ignored.

[CountrySteve21]

The SSPX has too accept VII.

Pope Benedict XVI in the Ratzinger Report put it best:

 

 To defend the true tradition of the Church today means to defend the Council.It is also our fault if we have at times provided a pretext (to "right" and "left" alike)to view Vatican II as a "break" and an abandonment of the tradition.There is,instead, a continuity that allows neither a return to the past nor a flight forward, neither anachronistc longings nor unjustified impatience. We must remain faithful to the today of the Church, not the yesterday or tomorrow. And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them.

 

 

Pax

[Nihil Obstat]

Accepting the Council, whatever that means, does not and never has meant that aspects of the council cannot be discussed, debated, even corrected or given an authentic interpretation. This is all the Society has ever asked for. And every authority on the subject agrees that discussion, even substantial discussion of the documents themselves, remains a possibility for faithful Catholics.

[BigJon16]

3 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

 If this goes through, I will be rejoicing greatly. I believe that we need their pastoral guidance right now, and a regularized Society will be a massive force for authentic Catholicism.

I would echo this, not because I tend to be one to separate the Church into "camps," but simply because I agree that the Society could have a lot of great gifts to offer the Church, especially in the 21st Century. That's kind of what makes the Universal Church such a beautiful thing, different perspectives, different practices, all centered around the same Person.  

Not that you're separating the Church into "camps," (you aren't, nor have you ever), but I can see how some could take this that way. People tend to get very emotional about traditionally grounded groups, asserting that they feel "offended." I guess I get that. But I think that typically comes from a feeling of being looked down upon.

The greatest obstacle the SSPX might face is such opinions of them as pretentious and "high and mighty," and although some particular persons might be, that doesn't mean they can't enter into full communion. News flash, spend any good amount of time around Catholics, and odds are that some of them are going to come off as jerks. But if there's one thing I've learned this past year, don't judge a book by it's cover. And don't judge a Trad by their surplice (Not sure if that makes sense, but it kinda sounds cool.) 

 

I've not been on PM much, but I've always enjoyed Nihil and Amp's levelheadedness about the Church. You guys rock! 

[Nihil Obstat]

Personally, I think the perception of the sspx being elitist and pretentious is totally without basis in reality. In my personal experience they are in fact very 'blue collar' and fairly rough around the edges. Y'all 'Muricans should love that.

I met bishop Williamson briefly, not too long after he was expelled from the Society, and he wore the shabbiest chasuble you are ever likely to see... Anyway, not a pleasant man at all. The Society was right to show him the door, I say.

[Amppax]

4 hours ago, Benedictus said:

I think dialogue is desirable to do and to have unity as a long term objective. However, I think the ideas expressed in this article will create endless headaches and problems for the church if they went ahead. The implications of incorporating a dissenting faction is an odd one. I don't really see the point of it unless they can reach very clear agreement. Maybe the Vatican thinks it can slowly reform and tame them if they come in rather than being outside the structures? I think that may well be a bit naive. I can see a fair bit of opposition on both sides. 

The church would also have to answer some questions in terms of interfaith dialogue and face some challenging conversations with Jewish leaders. 

I think the SSPX did themselves a huge favor in the latter regard getting rid of Bishop Williamson. 

[Nihil Obstat]

7 minutes ago, Amppax said:

I think the SSPX did themselves a huge favor in the latter regard getting rid of Bishop Williamson. 

Williamson has totally lost it. I like to think that his intentions were good at one point, but he has been totally consumed with a very dangerous, very evil sort of fanaticism. He fell for the exact danger the recent letter circulated in the Society warned about; the temptation to regard hindered unity as normal. More than that, he seems to find it preferable, and he is against the very concept of fixing relationships with Rome. He has given up hope for a resolution to the Church's troubles, and his preaching to his weird group of independent chapels encourages them to be more insular, more hostile, and ultimately less Catholic. It is very troubling, but at least he has been isolated along with his more strident followers.

[Nihil Obstat]

5 hours ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

I.e., I don't think there's actually any way the Church would or could accommodate the SSPX without the Society accepting, at least in basic principle, the legitimacy of Vatican II.

We should be clear here. The SSPX do accept, and have always accepted Vatican II as a valid Council of the Church. That has never been the question. For goodness' sake, Marcel Lefebvre was a council father. There are certain formulations in certain documents to which they object. They can point to a discrete list of objections when they are asked to (and they have done so), and that is what the doctrinal talks revolved around. It is within the context of Vatican II as a valid council that they object to a specific subset of issues within it; the doctrinal talks would make little sense if we were starting from a disagreement on whether or not the council even exists.

So yes, clearly they accept "the legitimacy of Vatican II." They just disagree with some of its stickier formulations. And it seems that they are well within their rights to do so.

[Guest]

All I want to know is if Allah from the Koran is God...

[Nihil Obstat]

38 minutes ago, Josh said:

All I want to know is if Allah from the Koran is God...

Wrong thread for that...

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Wrong thread for that...

Isn't that one of the issues they disagree with?