Sspx Rejects Pope's Call To Rejoin Rome

[Farsight one]

Ok...I'm a bit confused.

They broke off and they claim that they are the true church. Which means they think we are a false one, and, de facto, Benedict the XVI is a false pope.

Would not returning to the Church force them to admit that Benedict the XVI is not a false pope, and thus never could have been one? Which would in turn force them to admit that they were wrong all along?

Is there something I'm missing here?

[doe-jo]

i dont think the SSPX believe that B16 is a false pope... unless I am missing something.

[Farsight one]

[quote name='doe-jo' post='1585468' date='Jun 28 2008, 04:38 AM']i dont think the SSPX believe that B16 is a false pope... unless I am missing something. [/quote]
If he's not a false pope, then he's a real pope. which means his teachings are real. Which means the SSPX is knowingly wrong and should just admit it.

See? They're on the wrong end either way.

[Justin86]

[quote name='mortify' post='1585114' date='Jun 28 2008, 07:11 AM']According to recent reports the original leak about the SSPX having to accept the Second Vat Council is false, the five conditions are far milder and thus all the more shocking that they were rejected:

===QUOTE===
[color="#ff0000"]I have gotten hold of the letter (written in French) which Dario Card. Castrillon Hoyos wrote with the five conditions sent to [Bp.] Fellay in view of a return to full communion with Rome. Contrary to the first leaks, there is no mention of acceptance of the Council or the new Mass: they are prior general conditions. In fact the Holy See, showing a great generosity, asks that they not attack the person of the Pope. [Bp.] Fellay asked Benedict XVI for the revocation of the excommunication, so the request to respect authority without first pretending to be the recipients of a a "superior" Magisterium to that of the reigning Pontiff seems to me to be a commonsensical condition! This is the text of the letter which bears the signature of the Cardinal President of Ecclesia Dei:

Conditions resulting from the 4 june 2008 meeting between Dario Card. Castrillon Hoyos and Bishop Bernard Fellay:

1. A commitment to a proportioned response to the generosity of the Pope.
2. A commitment to avoid any public speech which does not respect the person of the Holy Father and which can be negative for ecclesial charity.
3. A commitment to avoid the pretense of a Magisterium superior to the Holy Father and to not put forward the Fraternity [SSPX] in opposition to the Church.
4. A commitment to demonstrate the will to behave honestly in full ecclesial charity and in respect to the authority of the Vicar of Christ.
5. A commitment to respect the date – fixed at the end of the month of June – to respond positively. This will be a required and necessary condition for the immediate preparation for adhesion to have full communion.[/color]
===END-QUOTE===

From: [url="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2036232/posts"][u]Link to source[/u][/url][/quote]
Those conditions, if they were what the Vatican actually wants, are so vague they could mean anything. While I disagree strongly with the SSPX, I could understand not wanting to rejoin under these requirements. They could be tricked into accepting anything.

[mortify]

I guess they want the Pope to repudiate vatican ii and then lift the excommunication on Arch Lefebvre, and then they'll come back.

[Justin86]

[quote name='mortify' post='1585517' date='Jun 28 2008, 10:17 PM']I guess they want the Pope to repudiate vatican ii and then lift the excommunication on Arch Lefebvre, and then they'll come back.[/quote]
If that is what they desire then it is by far too early for Rome to actually condemn the pastoral council (yes, pretty much of all of Vatican II was a pastoral council, and is therefore not infallible).

I'm unsure if Rome ever has lifted an excommunication on a deceased person. I'm not sure I see the point really.

[XIX]

[quote name='abercius24' post='1585427' date='Jun 28 2008, 01:59 AM']I think its time to discontinue recognizing the SSPX by the term "SSPX" and call them what they will be known for in Church history to come: "The Lefebvrites". We should not participate in tarnishing Pope St. Pius X's good name in the name of those who have no love for the Papacy.[/quote]
Kinda like how Susan B. Anthony had the misfortune of having an abortion chamber named after her.

[goldenchild17]

don't know if anyone has posted this anywhere. Seems as if the SSPX has chosen not to return to Rome at this time.

[Dave]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1585559' date='Jun 28 2008, 12:35 PM']If that is what they desire then it is by far too early for Rome to actually condemn the pastoral council (yes, pretty much of all of Vatican II was a pastoral council, and is therefore not infallible).[/quote]

From a chapter of [i]More Catholic Than the Pope[/i] by Patrick Madrid and Pete Vere:

[quote]Many traditionalists argue that the Second Vatican Council was the first general council of the Church to be uniquely convened as a "pastoral" council. Yet the word "pastoral" can be understood (and misunderstood) in different ways. When applied to the Second Vatican Council, as Father de Servigny points out, the word "pastoral" must be understood in the context of what Pope John XXIII intended when he convened the Council. This is a fairly common principle when it comes to the interpretation of the sacred sciences. In fact, one can draw a parallel between Father de Servigny's approach and Canon 17 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law (or, since the 1983 Code of Canon Law was not yet in effect when Pope John XXIII convened the Second Vatican Council, Canon 18 from the 1917 Code of Canon Law).

Father de Servigny cites the following paragraph from Pope John XXIII's opening discourse at the Second Vatican Council: "It must come to pass that this certain and immutable doctrine, which must be faithfully respected, is deepened and presented in a way that replies to the demands of our time . . . We must attach more importance to this way and patiently, if need be, towards its elaboration, and we must hasten to a way of presenting it that better corresponds to a teaching whose character is pastoral above all else (2).

This is a fairly good summary of how Pope John XXIII understood the word "pastoral" when he convened the Second Vatican Council. "Pastoral" does not mean that the Second Vatican Council merely focused upon the Church's pastoral discipline -- those laws and practices subject to change over time. Nor does "pastoral" mean the Second Vatican Council ignored the Church's teaching, since its pronouncements had to be based on some previous Catholic teaching in order to qualify as one of the Church's general councils. Rather, "pastoral" in this context means taking the Church's existing, immutable teaching -- those matters of faith and morals that we derive from Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition -- and putting them into practice in a manner that challenges today's society and culture in terms it can comprehend.

"While the temptation exists to oppose the Second Vatican Council's pastoral nature with the dogmatic nature of previous ecumenical councils," Father de Servigny warns, "pastoral and dogmatic do not automatically exclude one another. For a pastoral teaching is a theological teaching, albeit not purely intellectual and reserved to theologians. Rahter, it is transmitted to the everyday world in order to spiritually feed Christians and enlighten them about the mystery of God. It is this teaching that enlightens the faithful, telling us what we must believe and what we must do to grow in our relationship with our Lord Jesus Christ."

In other words, "pastoral" determines where a doctrine stands among the average Catholic in the pew. We don't study God for God's sake, but for our own. We study the mystery of God to better understand Him, to love Him all the more, and to live His truth more fully. For instance, doctrinal theology teaches us about the great mystery of Christ's redemption, whereas pastoral theology teaches us to put this mystery into practice by frequenting the sacrament of confession. Doctrinal theology teaches us about the mystery of transubstantiation during the holy Sacrifice of the Mass, whereas pastoral theology teaches us when we can and cannot partake of this mystery.

Once the reader understands this pastoral orientation of the Second Vatican Council, Father de Servigny introduces the following quotation from Cardinal Yves Congar, O.P. -- one of the many theological experts invited to partake in the Council. "What John XXIII designated by 'pastoral' was doctrine," Cardinal Congar writes, "but expressing itself in history, in the time of the actual world . . . It is doctrinal, but pastoral doctrine, that is to say doctrine that asks to be applied historically" (3). What Congar means is that, as a pastoral council, the Second Vatican Council sought to apply the Church's teaching within the context of current history -- to make the Church's doctrine relevant to today's world. At the incarnation, Christ didn't merely take upon Himself human flesh -- He also took upon Himself our customs, mores, culture, and, as far as creation is concerned, time and space. Thus, doctrine applies here and now, across the expanse of human geography, in an age of modern technology and universal communications. Doctrine is not simply restricted to the Hebrew population gathered in the vicinity of Jerusalem during the era of King Herod and Pontius Pilate.[/quote]

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Margaret Clare' post='1584923' date='Jun 27 2008, 01:33 PM']Fr. Z doesn't seem to think this article is the end of the story[/quote]

It's not (unless the Vatican doesn't want them back). Bishop Fellay was interviewed soon after the news came out that the reconciliation did not go through, and he said that he still wants to work towards a reunion, but wished to discuss the doctrinal concerns, and believed that Rome was pushing things along a little too quickly.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='mortify' post='1585114' date='Jun 27 2008, 05:11 PM']According to recent reports the original leak about the SSPX having to accept the Second Vat Council is false, the five conditions are far milder and thus all the more shocking that they were rejected[/quote]

Bishop Fellay doesn't reject the conditions outright. From a very general summary/interpretation of an Italian interview:

The interviewer put the first question in terms of the SSPX having rejecting the offer, that on Friday for an ordination, it was announced that the SSPX rejected the ultimatum. But Fellay corrected him saying that that is not quite accurate. Fellay said that it is perhaps false to say that "reject".

"Maybe it is false to say so directly that I reject, that I have made a complete refusal. That’s not true. Rather, I see in this ultimate something very vague and confused.

But isn’t this the last chance to reunite with Rome, during this favorable time with Pope Benedict XVI?

Fellay repeated that this ultimatum makes no sense (non ha senso) because they do, in fact, have a dialogue with Rome,even if it is slow. Rome wants to speed things up.

Fellay claims that they want to continue dialogue. SSPX wants to continue the dialogue. For Fellay dialogue might be "chilly" right now but it is not over.

The interviewer asked if Rome will lose patience, is the the SSPX at risk, will be it more and more marginalized?

Fellay said that more more people are coming to the SSPX. They don’t want to break with the Church. They desire to be accepted into the Church and do good for the Church. They are defenders of tradition.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1585258' date='Jun 27 2008, 07:31 PM']I think that we will get back many of the rank and file because their leader's response has clearly shown that this isn't about theology, this is about power, arrogance, and lack of obedience.[/quote]

interesting. not sure which statements of his you've been reading (if any).

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='abercius24' post='1585427' date='Jun 27 2008, 11:59 PM']I think its time to discontinue recognizing the SSPX by the term "SSPX" and call them what they will be known for in Church history to come: "The Lefebvrites". We should not participate in tarnishing Pope St. Pius X's good name in the name of those who have no love for the Papacy.[/quote]

but I would assume you are okay with the Orthodox rites keeping their names, which all correspond to valid Catholic Eastern Rites?

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1585464' date='Jun 28 2008, 01:51 AM']Ok...I'm a bit confused.

They broke off and they claim that they are the true church. Which means they think we are a false one, and, de facto, Benedict the XVI is a false pope.

Would not returning to the Church force them to admit that Benedict the XVI is not a false pope, and thus never could have been one? Which would in turn force them to admit that they were wrong all along?

Is there something I'm missing here?[/quote]

yeah. you're missing the fact that they don't believe that it's a false Church. They believe Benedict is a real pope, who has (along with his recent predecessors) made some very serious (but not infallible) mistakes. They would not be trying to reconcile if they didn't believe that Benedict was a real pope leading the real church. They didn't break away. They were excommunicated (at least the bishops were). There's a difference.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1585476' date='Jun 28 2008, 03:57 AM']If he's not a false pope, then he's a real pope. which means his teachings are real. Which means the SSPX is knowingly wrong and should just admit it.

See? They're on the wrong end either way. [/quote]

Not everything a Pope says is infallible, which is true. This is their premise, and they say the recent popes have made serious mistakes in regards to some non-infallible matters.