Sspx Rejects Pope's Call To Rejoin Rome

[Aloysius]

no, I don't think we do agree... I don't have a problem with "radtrads" thinking they were right all along once the issue is resolved. In fact, I think it likely that Rome could lift the excommunication on Lefebvre retroactively. The question should be dead and buried with Lefebvre as an historical figure that may or may not have gone too far amidst a struggle for the very heart of the Church in which both sides were making many errors. If nothing else, Lefebvre has now been vindicated at being horified that the traditional mass was being forbidden by bishops because Summorum Pontificum has clearly shown that Quo Primum still stood at the time. Lefebvre's act was a schismatic act... but every act of a bishop suppressing the Traditional Mass was also a schismatic act in a way. now, the bishops may be excused for not realizing that they did not have the right because the rite was never actually suppressed... but in the end the good archbishop himself might be excused for thinking what he did was necessary to preserve the faith... and we may see such sympathies in the eventual decree lifting his excommunication.

the thing about it is, I see people here speaking much more harshly against the SSPX than Rome herself ever speaks.

[kafka]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1587342' date='Jun 30 2008, 05:48 PM']I think Bishop Fellay is being very smart and courageous here... he has a unique oppurtunity as superior general of the society at this point in time... what good would it be if he rejoined Rome only to have Williamson split the society in half (I don't know what percentage would go with which faction if it happened, but just for the sake of discussion let's say at least half)

according to reports, Rome has recieved Fellay's letter favorably. whatever that means... no one knows what is in the letter only that Fellay says it neither accepts nor rejects Rome's proposal.

I think history will see the role of the SSPX as important in anchoring the Church against going past any point of non-return; the question will be killed and buried as to whether Lefebvre was right or wrong in his actions... probably it will always be held that he was wrong in theory but that both sides made many errors. so long as Rome removes the excommunication (it can (there is precedent) and should be done) of Lefebvre, that question will be laid to rest where it belongs.

the question with the excommunication being lifted is whether it will be retroactively lifted... Rome has every capability of doing that (and I would like to see it done that way) or if they'll just lift it at the time. I fully expect it to eventually be lifted from the four bishops and Lefebvre himself. and it's up to Fellay now to make it happen... had he just fully and unequivicolly accepted these ambiguous requirements it probably would've split the society and created one group that was even more radical and another group joined with Rome but without the influence it would've had if the whole group rejoined Rome.

what needs to happen at this point in time is that the SSPX needs to rejoin Rome and have a strong and clear voice within the Church. this reunion is as important for us as it is for the SSPX and I don't feel a lot of people here recognize that... it's part of the Benedict papacy's project to bridge our tattered last forty years to the larger tradition of our Church and connect it... and we need a large group like this to do it. If Rome brings them back in, it sends a message to the universal Church that Rome wants these traditions to thrive inside the Church.[/quote]
Al, some of your thinking is absurd. Rome lifting the excommunication? They and I mean SSPX (and other straggler Traditional groups) are the ones who excommunicated themselves. They are the ones who committed heresy and schism. They did it to themselves since they exalted their own poor and limited understanding over the Faith, and the Magisterium itself.

SSPX having an important voice within the Church? Absurd, why would heretics and schismatics be given an important voice in the Church shortly upon their reunion (if indeed that ever happens). They have rejected VII, the New Mass, the subsequent teachings of the Popes since VII (especially JPII who in my humble theological opinion did teach Infallibly on certain topics of faith and morals.)

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1587396' date='Jun 30 2008, 07:12 PM']no, I don't think we do agree... I don't have a problem with "radtrads" thinking they were right all along once the issue is resolved. In fact, I think it likely that Rome could lift the excommunication on Lefebvre retroactively. The question should be dead and buried with Lefebvre as an historical figure that may or may not have gone too far amidst a struggle for the very heart of the Church in which both sides were making many errors. If nothing else, Lefebvre has now been vindicated at being horified that the traditional mass was being forbidden by bishops because Summorum Pontificum has clearly shown that Quo Primum still stood at the time. Lefebvre's act was a schismatic act... but every act of a bishop suppressing the Traditional Mass was also a schismatic act in a way. now, the bishops may be excused for not realizing that they did not have the right because the rite was never actually suppressed... but in the end the good archbishop himself might be excused for thinking what he did was necessary to preserve the faith... and we may see such sympathies in the eventual decree lifting his excommunication.

the thing about it is, I see people here speaking much more harshly against the SSPX than Rome herself ever speaks.[/quote]

I know the very love child of Levebre. In other words, that man who was once his favorite priest. He thought along the same lines as you though he broke off with SSPX. It wasnt a matter of suppressing the Traditional Mass. They could have celebrated it all along. It was an issue of these Trad groups rejecting the Ecumenical Council known as Vatican II and the Magisterial teachings of the subsequent Popes and the New Mass. It is even predicted in Revelation:

{2:6} But this you have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

~This was a heretical group during the times of the early Church who took their name from one of the first seven deacons namely, the deacon Nicholas. They were known for their sexual promiscuity, (which is a foreshadowing of the attachment SSPX and other Trad groups have to their idea of Truth), and broke away from the Church. Just as the Nicolaitans took their name from a Saint so does SSPX. Yet Saint Pius X would never approve of them, nor did he establish it, nor was he ever a part of it.

Lefevre and his group exalted themselves and their own limited ideas about the Faith over Christ and His teaching. There is no mistaking it. Their is no grey area. Even by the fruits of SSPX you may know them. And the fruits are scary and devastating. I know first hand. Now obviously many priests since VII had their own horrid sins, but that is not the fault of the Council, or the New Mass. These priests chose to sin, and chose to become evil in their own deeds. There is nothing wrong witht the documents of the Council or the Novus Ordo Mass (apart from various Liturgical errors caused by neglectful priests).

In the final analysous, there should be one form of the Mass (and Liturgy), translated into each and every language of the world.

[Alycin]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1587396' date='Jun 30 2008, 07:12 PM']I don't have a problem with "radtrads" thinking they were right all along once the issue is resolved.[/quote]

Actually, there is a problem. It sets a precedent that says it is okay to rely on one's own understanding and say that one knows better than the Church.

[quote]Lefebvre's act was a schismatic act... but every act of a bishop suppressing the Traditional Mass was also a schismatic act in a way.[/quote]

It is my understanding that the Church never banned the traditional mass, and the SSPX has also proven that this is about more than their preference for a traditional mass, or they would have renounced their schismatic efforts with SP.

[quote]the thing about it is, I see people here speaking much more harshly against the SSPX than Rome herself ever speaks.[/quote]

I hope you are not referring to me. I don't consider it harsh to say that one either submits to Holy Mother Church or they don't. It's just true.

Edited July 1, 2008 by Alycin

[kafka]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1587426' date='Jun 30 2008, 08:25 PM']It is my understanding that the Church never banned the traditional mass, and the SSPX has also proven that this is about more than their preference for a traditional mass, or they would have renounced their schismatic efforts with SP.[/quote]
did you read my post above?

[Alycin]

[quote name='kafka' post='1587432' date='Jun 30 2008, 08:32 PM']did you read my post above?[/quote]

I did now.

[KnightofChrist]

"The bishops, priests and faithful of the Society of St Pius X [b]are not schismatics[/b]. It is Archbishop Lefebrve who has undertaken an illicit episcopal consecration and therefore performed a schismatic act. It is for this reason that the Bishops consecrated by him have been suspended and excommunicated. [b]The priests and faithful of the Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics.[/b]"

+Cardinal Castrillón

[KnightofChrist]

"We are not facing a heresy. One cannot say in correct, exact, precise terms that there is a schism [here]. There is a schismatic attitude in the consecration of bishops without a pontifical mandate. [b]They are inside the Church[/b]; there is only lacking a full, a more perfect — as was said in the meeting with Msgr. Fellay — a fuller communion, [b]because there is communion[/b]"

+Cardinal Castrillón

[Alycin]

The SSPX may acknowledge the primacy of the pope [i]in words[/i], but it rejects the pope’s jurisdiction[i] in practice[/i]. Pope John Paul II was prepared to give the SSPX legitimacy and to allow the Tridentine Mass as, in effect, another Roman "rite," if Archbishop Lefebvre would only refrain from ordaining any new bishops and acknowledge the legitimacy and decisions of the Second Vatican Council. The archbishop refused and was excommunicated after he ordained four bishops. The SSPX continues to reject Vatican II; thus it is not true that it "teaches everything the Church taught for the last two millennia." One of the things the Church has taught during that long period is that the formal acts and decisions of an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church are guaranteed by the Holy Spirit and are binding upon the faithful.[b] The ancient Arians made evident their schism and heresy when they refused to accept the decisions of the Council of Nicaea. SSPXers today make evident the same thing when they reject the teachings and decisions of the twenty-first ecumenical council of the Catholic Church, Vatican II. [/b]

-Kenneth Whitehead, catholic.com

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1587459' date='Jun 30 2008, 08:04 PM']The SSPX may acknowledge the primacy of the pope [i]in words[/i], but it rejects the pope’s jurisdiction[i] in practice[/i]. Pope John Paul II was prepared to give the SSPX legitimacy and to allow the Tridentine Mass as, in effect, another Roman "rite," if Archbishop Lefebvre would only refrain from ordaining any new bishops and acknowledge the legitimacy and decisions of the Second Vatican Council. The archbishop refused and was excommunicated after he ordained four bishops. The SSPX continues to reject Vatican II; thus it is not true that it "teaches everything the Church taught for the last two millennia." One of the things the Church has taught during that long period is that the formal acts and decisions of an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church are guaranteed by the Holy Spirit and are binding upon the faithful.[b] The ancient Arians made evident their schism and heresy when they refused to accept the decisions of the Council of Nicaea. SSPXers today make evident the same thing when they reject the teachings and decisions of the twenty-first ecumenical council of the Catholic Church, Vatican II. [/b]

-Kenneth Whitehead, catholic.com[/quote]

With all due respect to Kenneth Whitehead, Cardinal Castrillón is the President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, the Curial office which handles the Church's relations with the SSPX, and other traditional groups. With his words he speaks with the authority of Ecclesia Dei, as well as the Church.

[Alycin]

"But [b]especially contradictory[/b] is a notion of Tradition which [b]opposes[/b] the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is [u][b]impossible[/b][/u] to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.(6)

5. Faced with the situation that has arisen I deem it my duty to inform all the Catholic faithful of some aspects which this sad event has highlighted.

a) The outcome of the movement promoted by Mons. Lefebvre can and must be, for all the Catholic faithful, a motive for sincere reflection concerning their own fidelity to the Church's Tradition, authentically interpreted by the ecclesiastical Magisterium, ordinary and extraordinary, especially in the Ecumenical Councils from Nicaea to Vatican II. From this reflection all should draw a renewed and efficacious conviction of the necessity of strengthening still more their fidelity by rejecting erroneous interpretations and arbitrary and unauthorized applications in matters of doctrine, liturgy and discipline.

To the bishops especially it pertains, by reason of their pastoral mission, to exercise the important duty of a clear-sighted vigilance full of charity and firmness, so that this fidelity may be everywhere safeguarded.(7)

However, it is necessary that all the Pastors and the other faithful have a new awareness, not only of the lawfulness but also of the richness for the Church of a diversity of charisms, traditions of spirituality and apostolate, which also constitutes the beauty of unity in variety: of that blended "harmony" which the earthly Church raises up to Heaven under the impulse of the Holy Spirit.

b) Moreover, I should like to remind theologians and other experts in the ecclesiastical sciences that they should feel themselves called upon to answer in the present circumstances. Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council's continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.

c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the******[u][b] schism [/b][/u]*******is a [u][b]grave offense against God[/b][/u] and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law.(8)"

Emphasis mine.

If they were/are in communion with Rome I can't imagine why the late Pope would say such a thing?

Maybe the distinction needs to be made between SSPXers and Lefebvre... followers? But since he founded it I don't really see the point.

Edited July 1, 2008 by Alycin

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1587473' date='Jun 30 2008, 08:22 PM']"I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfill the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church and of [u][b]ceasing their support in any way[/b][/u] for that movement." -JPII

If they were/are in communion with Rome I can't imagine why the late Pope would say such a thing?[/quote]

John Paul II, wrote that in 1988 directly after Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated his bishops. Many things have changed in 20 yrs.

Cardinal Castrillón was first made President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, under John Paul II. Why would he as Pope place a man in such authority if he did not believe in what the Cardinal believes?

[Alycin]

**Edited out because of possible and probable misinterpretation.**

Edited July 1, 2008 by Alycin

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1587479' date='Jun 30 2008, 08:40 PM']Jesus picked Judas so anything is possible.[/quote]

With all due respect it is highly improper to compare Cardinal Castrillón, to the betrayer Judas.

[abercius24]

I'm not sure how many of you are familiar with members of the Lefebvrite Movement, but they have unknowingly and very closely aligned themselves with other "RadTrads" in a very bad way. In fact they have taken many of their own teachings in a direction that is tountamount to heresy. Sedevacantist and Feeneyist teachings go very much unchecked within their ranks, if not supported. It makes sense that this has occured because these are the folks they sought company with amidst the misery of their separation.

But even moreso, their consistent statement that the Pope is a heretic and that heresy exists within the Ordinary and Universal Magesterium is in fact a denial of a dogma sourced from an ecumenical council they themselves claim to adhere to: Vatican I. Vatican I teaches us infallibly that the consistent teachings of the Ordinary and Universal Magesterium are Infallible (and found only in those Bishops in full union with the Pope). Their position therefore defines their hypocracy even to themselves and identifies a need for doctrinal adjustment on their part before re-entry into the Church is even realistically possible.

But this is possible if both parties continue to approach this dialogue with humble hearts and minds. And even more importantly, if we continue to pray.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1587473' date='Jun 30 2008, 08:22 PM']c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the******[u][b] schism [/b][/u]*******is a [u][b]grave offense against God[/b][/u] and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law.(8)"

Emphasis mine.

If they were/are in communion with Rome I can't imagine why the late Pope would say such a thing?

Maybe the distinction needs to be made between SSPXers and Lefebvre... followers? But since he founded it I don't really see the point.[/quote]

ArchBishop Lefebvre committed the schismatic act, by the making of his bishops without permission of the Pope.