Sspx Rejects Pope's Call To Rejoin Rome

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1585489' date='Jun 28 2008, 04:45 AM']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.[/quote]

And that is exactly what Bishop Fellay's reasoning is. He says so in the italian interview.

[abercius24]

There is a lot of confusion about Vatican II and its infallibility. Yes, the Council as a whole is not infallible, particularly because its contents dealt mostly with elements of religious practice and general disciplinary methods. BUT, there are dogmatic decrees admist all the documents of Vatican II that ARE infallible. When a particular doctrine (regarding faith and morals) is laid out with solemn language stating that such truths are proclaimed by the Council Fathers and must be binding upon the consciences of all the faithful, then that doctrine is now elevated to the level of dogma. And there are in fact such statements in the documents of Vatican II. So, the Council as a whole may not be dogmatic, but it certainly does contain dogma that the Lefebvrites must accept. Vatican II Dogmas include:
--The State's Duty to Protect Religious Freedom (not the same as an Individual's Moral Right to Freedom of Religious Concscience)
--The Incomplete, yet Substantial Brotherhood the Church Holds with Jews and Moslems and the Immoral Character of Discrimination based on Race, Color, Condition of Life, or Religion.
--An Individual's Moral Right to Education, particularly Education in the Faith

Edited June 28, 2008 by abercius24

[goldenchild17]

If those are the infallible teachings, then I amend my initial thoughts about the reunion. I hope they never do, if they are bound to some of those teachings.

[abercius24]

There is a substantial anti-semitism that exists in the Lefebvrite movement that lead them to not accept the Decrees of Vatican II. They adopt as their own the personal issues many of the Church Fathers had with the Jewish people. We have no legitimate claim to the same feelings of persecution the Early Church had at the hands of the Jews given our current relationship with the Jewish people. And despite the Early Church Father's poor choice of words when speaking of their Jewish persecutors, they still recognized the Jewish people as their older brothers of the Faith.

[goldenchild17]

okay

[mortify]

Speaking of the "dogmaticness" of Vatican II, I keep finding conflicting information. On one hand there are quotes from the Popes and commentators that Vatican II was not and did not intend to be dogmatic, that is they did not intend to introduce any dogma, and if they were to do so it would be clearly indicated. The problem however is that some documents contain the word "dogma," as in example the Dogmatic Constitutions of Lumen Gentium, which suggests the points therein are dogmatic, but then this would contradict the previous statements.

Ultimately the point is Vatican II is binding on us even though it is not set in stone, i.e. the pastoral changes it brought can be changed in the future.

Lastly, I do hope the SSPX return to full union with Rome, many of them are good hearted Catholics even if they be on the wrong side of the fence and they're devotion can surely be used to reform the Church.


Pax Christi

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Margaret Clare' post='1584923' date='Jun 27 2008, 02:33 PM']Fr. Z doesn't seem to think this article is the end of the story, [url="http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/06/reuters-bp-fellay-says-no-story-is-not-the-end-of-the-story/"]http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/06/reuters-bp-...d-of-the-story/[/url]

[url="http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/06/pray-pray-now-2/"]http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/06/pray-pray-now-2/[/url]

[url="http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/06/sleepless-at-the-moment-pray/"]http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/06/sleepless-at-the-moment-pray/[/url]

[url="http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/06/pray-pray-now-3/"]http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/06/pray-pray-now-3/[/url]

Although it does look very unlikely at this point that this agreement will take place within the next couple of days. And this is disturbing from Bishop Williamson - [url="http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/06/musings-of-excommd-sspx-bp-williamson/"]http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/06/musings-of-...-bp-williamson/[/url]

Also, there's a little podcast audio there with an interview. It starts around 27 minutes, where he is being interviewed about the current situation with the SSPX [url="http://www.wdtprs.com/podcazt/08_06_26.mp3"]http://www.wdtprs.com/podcazt/08_06_26.mp3[/url][/quote]
[quote name='Margaret Clare' post='1584954' date='Jun 27 2008, 02:58 PM']New blog post from FR. Z - [url="http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/06/afp-lefebvrites-no-intention-of-responding-to-vatican-ultimatum/"]http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/06/afp-lefebvr...ican-ultimatum/[/url][/quote]
Poor Fr Z. He's really concerned about this. Heck, so am I. May God unite what evil has broken.

[quote name='abercius24' post='1585427' date='Jun 28 2008, 12:59 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]
Interesting way of putting it. I agreed with you the first time I read this, but now I think we're jumping the gun a bit...

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1585679' date='Jun 28 2008, 02:46 PM']but I would assume you are okay with the Orthodox rites keeping their names, which all correspond to valid Catholic Eastern Rites?[/quote]
I'd have to say that's a different context all together.

[quote name='abercius24' post='1585691' date='Jun 28 2008, 02:54 PM']There is a lot of confusion about Vatican II and its infallibility. Yes, the Council as a whole is not infallible, particularly because its contents dealt mostly with elements of religious practice and general disciplinary methods. BUT, there are dogmatic decrees admist all the documents of Vatican II that ARE infallible. When a particular doctrine (regarding faith and morals) is laid out with solemn language stating that such truths are proclaimed by the Council Fathers and must be binding upon the consciences of all the faithful, then that doctrine is now elevated to the level of dogma. And there are in fact such statements in the documents of Vatican II. So, the Council as a whole may not be dogmatic, but it certainly does contain dogma that the Lefebvrites must accept. Vatican II Dogmas include:
--The State's Duty to Protect Religious Freedom (not the same as an Individual's Moral Right to Freedom of Religious Concscience)
--The Incomplete, yet Substantial Brotherhood the Church Holds with Jews and Moslems and the Immoral Character of Discrimination based on Race, Color, Condition of Life, or Religion.
--An Individual's Moral Right to Education, particularly Education in the Faith[/quote]

Surely not the muslims? Their understand of God is quite interesting... and can they really back up their claims to ties w/ "Ishmael"?

[abercius24]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1586002' date='Jun 29 2008, 12:00 AM']Interesting way of putting it. I agreed with you the first time I read this, but now I think we're jumping the gun a bit...[/quote]

I do hope so!

[quote name='mortify' post='1585822' date='Jun 28 2008, 06:03 PM']Lastly, I do hope the SSPX return to full union with Rome, many of them are good hearted Catholics even if they be on the wrong side of the fence and they're devotion can surely be used to reform the Church.
Pax Christi[/quote]


You are right, there are very many good people caught up in the movement for genuine emotional reasons. When I did door-to-door work, they were the hardest people to leave behind after speaking with them. They were one of us, but they simply loved the Tridentine Rite too much to abandone it. Thanks to Benedict XVI, they have no reason to anymore.

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1586002' date='Jun 29 2008, 12:00 AM']Surely not the muslims? Their understand of God is quite interesting... and can they really back up their claims to ties w/ "Ishmael"?[/quote]

No, they really can't back up their claims to ties with Ishamel. In fact we know that isn't true. And they do have a skewed understanding of Salvation and our relationship with God. Regardless, they do have the genuine and informed intention of worshiping the God of Abraham. They worship the God of our Fathers even though they misunderstand a great number of other things. That means we do share the same spiritual Father -- God -- and are therefore brothers in Faith.

Edited June 29, 2008 by abercius24

[mortify]

The vagueness of the five conditions isn't a reason to reject the ultimatum. They all more or less call for respect and obedience to the Magesterium, which the SSPX already claims to be doing.

The "hastiness" Fellay complains of is balanced with the fact the Pope is not requiring them to openly pledge fidelity to the Second Vatican Council, but only the baby step of respecting the Papal Office.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Well, just more proof that pride is the whole reason behind the schism...

[Totus Tuus]

The SSPX is constantly making me want to cry.

Edited June 30, 2008 by Totus Tuus

[Veridicus]

I know we aren't supposed to get too much into trad/cath. debate on here. But I just have a hard time understanding the movement. I mean I get their devotion to the TLM and their frustrations over the liberal implementations since V2...but I don't understand how one can call themselves Catholic when their movement was started by someone who flagrantly denied obedience to the Pope and the Holy See. I mean Lefebvre was excommunicated by a Pope that SSPX members supposedly recognize as valid.

To me nothing is more Catholic than belonging to the Universal Church united in the Eucharist and in submission to the Pope.

Frustrated...

[mortify]

I think the banning of the traditional latin mass, liturgical abuses, certain "contradictions" in Church teaching, and the ecumenical events at Assisi brought him to the conclusion the only thing he could do to preserve the Catholic faith was to consecrate four bishops. In hs Econe speech, he said it was not his intention to become Pope, but that Rome abandoned Catholicism and that his consecration of four bishops was an emergency maneuver for the faith's survival.

I'm not sure what to make of it, it's very easy to get lost into the thought of Arch Lefebvre because he was a very charismatic man, but ultimately we must accept the Successor of Peter and the Keys he bears, and schism can never be an answer.

Edited June 30, 2008 by mortify

[Aloysius]

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.

[Alycin]

Al, I agree with you, unfortunately I don't think that is the way it will appear. I think radtrads and others would see it as the schismatics were right all along, and that just isn't so. You either submit to the church or you don't. You don't get to break off and do your own thing and still call yourself Catholic. If that was the case, we wouldn't distinguish between protestant and catholic.