MithLuin Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 I'm not too concerned what they say when mouthing off to newspaper reporters at this point. I'm more concerned with what will be said when they sit down with the Vatican for their 'serious talks.' And I certainly [i]hope[/i] that the content of said talks will not be immediately reported to the news media each day! They can be a lot more fruitful if they are held in private, and only reported on once some kind of consensus or agreement is reached. I'm not calling for a media blackout - announcments that the talks are happening, and general quotes about 'we are working with so-and-so to reach an agreement' are fine. It's pretty obvious that the SSPX has some serious reservations when it comes to the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. I think it is...dangerous...for a group within the Church to decide that they know better than all the bishops together and go their own way. Yes, yes, the Council was filled with liberals. Compared to Lefebvre, who wasn't a liberal? The pope has made it clear that he's going to allow them to keep the traditional liturgy, so there's not a question of them being forced to make those reforms. But theologically? They probably need to sit down and have a chat about that. And if anyone suggests afterwards that Pope Benedict XVI failed in the talks because of his 'too liberal' theology, I think I will scream. If the talks fail, it will have a lot more to do with recalcitrant stubbornness on the part of the SSPX. I certainly hope they do not fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Still amazes me the level of demonetization the SSPX receives. We have more in common with them than most actual schismatic groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 [quote name='mortify' post='1794550' date='Mar 1 2009, 06:51 PM']I'm not sure what the SSPX position is, but I get the impression they accept Vatican II as a valid council but reject some of its reforms because they consider them harmful to faith.[/quote] If that's the case, then really the only thing blocking full communion should be obediance... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puellapaschalis Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1794592' date='Mar 2 2009, 04:04 AM']Still amazes me the level of demonetization the SSPX receives. We have more in common with them than most actual schismatic groups.[/quote] Me too, which is very different to what I previously thought. Comes of actually learning what the issues are and such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortify Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1794656' date='Mar 1 2009, 10:48 PM']If that's the case, then really the only thing blocking full communion should be obediance...[/quote] Yes, but remember there is a proper understanding of obedience. A subject must be obedient to a superior in all cases except one: when obedience would put the Faith in danger. In that case the subject must disobey the superior in order to obey God and keep the Faith intact. This is outlined in St Thomas' [i]Summa[/i] and it's the precept Archbishop Lefebvre used to justify his resistance to Vatican II reforms. The SSPX continues to resist the reforms because it continues to see them as dangers to the Faith. Personally I think schism is never justified, if in fact the SSPX is in schism. However, being that I am more of a traditional Catholic, it's hard to believe we would have the Latin Mass today had Archbishop Lefebvre not established the SSPX. So I suppose it would be a case of God using evil to bring about greater good. Edited March 2, 2009 by mortify Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1794656' date='Mar 1 2009, 09:48 PM']If that's the case, then really the only thing blocking full communion should be obediance...[/quote] Well that's the case with every single person or group in schism. It always boils down to obedience Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Just to be clear though the SSPX are not in schism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 [quote name='hot stuff' post='1795093' date='Mar 2 2009, 10:52 AM']Well that's the case with every single person or group in schism. It always boils down to obedience[/quote] At least with an actual schism like the East/West though, there actually are theological differences. Yea, it boils down to obediance, but they have what they believe are legitimate reasons for disobeying. Seems to me like SSPX has little excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1795587' date='Mar 2 2009, 08:46 PM']At least with an actual schism like the East/West though, there actually are theological differences. Yea, it boils down to obediance, but they have what they believe are legitimate reasons for disobeying. Seems to me like SSPX has little excuse.[/quote] I agree. There is never a legitimate reason to disobey the Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now