Posted on 12/21/2011 2:15:10 PM PST by NYer
The traditionalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) has delivered its official response to a Vatican offer for reconciliation, but the response is not what the Holy See expected, reports leading Vatican journalist Andrea Tornielli.
Last week the SSPX submitted a response to the “Doctrinal Preamble” that was presented to the traditionalist group in September as the possible basis for a reconciliation with the Holy See. The document allowed for some amendment or clarification, but the Vatican made it clear that the SSPX would be expected to accept the essence of the statement, acknowledging the authority of Vatican II, before the traditionalist group could be regularized.
Bishop Bernard Fellay, the head of the SSPX, had already disclosed that the group would not accept the Doctrinal Preamble as it stands. His public comments seemed to indicate that the SSPX would suggest amendments to the document. (The text of the Doctrinal Preamble has not been made public. Bishop Fellay explained that it will remain confidential until a final decision has been made.)
However, according to Tornielli, the formal response submitted by the SSPX to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is neither an agreement nor a proposal for changes in the document. Tornielli suggests that the SSPX response seems to be a bid to gain some extra time for internal discussions, because Bishop Fellay—who appears to be leaning toward an accord with the Holy See—faces stiff opposition from hard-line traditionalists within the group.
Additional sources for this story
Some links will take you to other sites, in a new window.
I know former SSPX who, when they came to understand what was really going on, left the SSPX, and are now Catholic.
They did so before this whole move over. They were treated very poorly by their ‘friends’, when they were received. She and her husband are rather amused by the proceedings now, given everything that they went through before.
If they are Catholic, in obedience to the Pope, then they should accept this decision and continue to show that they are no longer schismatics. This is like a maiden wavering on the altar, arguing over floral arrangements.
“I know former SSPX who, when they came to understand what was really going on, left the SSPX, and are now Catholic.”
What were they before they were “Catholic”?
Seriously, folks who attend SSPX services are not “SSPX”. Only the actual members of the Society are, well, members and they are all Catholic.
“...then they should accept this decision and continue to show that they are no longer schismatics.”
What “decision” should they “accept”? And when did they move from no longer being excommunicated to being, in your words, “schismatic”? What determination of the Holy See are you basing that defamatory claim?
“What do the speed of the discussions have to do with you or the Catholicity of the SSPX?”
To me their reluctance demonstrates their lack of Catholicity. They are not ready. Part of the Creed are the Councils, and that includes Vatican II. It’s all bundled up together.
“The Motu Proprio acknowledging that the SSPX has been right these many years and that the Tridentine Mass was NEVER suppressed? Or the decision by the Holy Father to lift the excommunications acknowledging that the SSPX clergy are actually, in fact, not excommunicated?”
That they are unwilling to accept Vatican II is evidence that they again, are not ready. All the councils have to be accepted. Not just all save one. They can’t hold out, and say, no, we refuse. There’s no difference here, than between the Chalcedonians and the non-Chalcedonians. Those who could not accept Chalcedon, left and did just as the SSPX did. Some have been brought back into Catholicity after all this time, some have not.
As soon as they cross that step and profess that they believe that the Pope is the head of the Church, then the consequence of this is that the Councils follow. That includes Vatican II.
I had to say the same when I was confirmed. I had to study all of the council decisions, especially from Trent onwards to make sure that I understood them and what the Church taught and believed.
“I agreed to do two things - to Obey the Creed, and God’s ministers here on earth, of whom the Pope is the head.”
If you honestly believed that parts of Vatican II are against the creed, as does the SSPX, what would you do?
“To me their reluctance demonstrates their lack of Catholicity.”
That’s nice. You sit in judgment rather than the Holy Father?
“That they are unwilling to accept Vatican II is evidence that they again, are not ready.”
What part of a “Pastoral Council” postulates new Dogma? What are you claiming that the SSPX is doing that, in your personal, private judgment, makes them “schismatic”?
“What were they before they were “Catholic”?”
They were always Catholic. They did not understand that the Lefebvrists were schismatics. When they did, they left and rejoined the Church.
“Seriously, folks who attend SSPX services are not “SSPX”. Only the actual members of the Society are, well, members and they are all Catholic.”
Now, yes. Back then? No.
“What “decision” should they “accept”?”
This one? They must accept Vatican II, just like the rest of the Councils. If they sincerely believe that they pope is the head of the Church, then they have to accept the Councils too.
“And when did they move from no longer being excommunicated to being, in your words, “schismatic”? What determination of the Holy See are you basing that defamatory claim?”
As I said, that is my opinion. I regard their footdragging as evidence that they remain schismatic and are not ready. If they want to demonstrate their Catholicity, accepting this preamble was a good way to do so. They chose a route that indicates they are not ready at present.
Which is a pity. But, as I said, obedience is hard.
“If you honestly believed that parts of Vatican II are against the creed, as does the SSPX, what would you do?”
I wouldn’t be lying to other people and calling myself Catholic.
I also wouldn’t be saying that I believed that the pope was the head of the Church. They don’t not really, because they aren’t willing to accept his authority.
I wasn’t ready to come over until I was willing to accept his authority. Seems they aren’t ready yet either. Sad.
“They were always Catholic. .... When they did, they left and rejoined the Church.”
If they were always Catholic, what did they “rejoin”?
“As I said, that is my opinion.”
Right. A very protestant point of view.
“I regard their footdragging as evidence that they remain schismatic and are not ready.”
You have no standing to make such a decision. You are arrogating the duties of the Vatican. Why?
“That’s nice. You sit in judgment rather than the Holy Father?”
Yep, sure do. As I said the Holy Father has been extremely patient with them. I, call ‘em as I see ‘em. If you are offended by my honest assessment of the affairs, then so be it. I’m hoping one day these stiff necks will wake up to the reality that the sooner they submit the better off they will be in the long run.
“What part of a “Pastoral Council” postulates new Dogma?”
When the Pope says it does. That’s how it works, narses. What next? Are you going to argue that the Immaculate Conception isn’t really true, either?
“What are you claiming that the SSPX is doing that, in your personal, private judgment, makes them “schismatic”?”
By refusing to accept Vatican II, they are demonstrating that they are still Schismatic.
“Yep, sure do. “
By refusing to assent to the authority of the Holy Father in this matter you are demonstrating that you are possibly Schismatic. Why would you do that?
“When the Pope says it does.”
What new Dogma has the Pope said Vatican II promulgated?
“When the Pope says it does.”
What new Dogma has the Pope said Vatican II promulgated?
“If they were always Catholic, what did they “rejoin”?”
The Church, when they left their Lefebrist parish, and regularized things with the bishop. As I said, they were unaware of the distinction. When they were made aware of the distiction, they left.
You can leave without leaving, many find themselves outside, while still remaining Catholic, Narses. That is why people state they are Catholic and in good standing. Both are important.
This is why I state that they were always Catholic, because they were never in wilfull disobedience to His Holiness.
“You have no standing to make such a decision. You are arrogating the duties of the Vatican. Why?”
What decision am I making? I am simply stating my opinion of the affairs as they stand. It is up to the Pope to decide what to do, if anything about this letter. I believe they are not ready, but I’m not going to be the one to state that they should not keep working towards the ultimate goal.
Far from it. I’m stating that their reluctance is, at present, evidence that they are not ready. That can and will change over time.
As for being protestant, fair enough. I was what I was. But the difference here is that I accept the Second Vatican council, warts and all. :) If an outright former heretic can do this then so can the Lefebrvists.
What new Dogma has the Pope said Vatican II promulgated?
“By refusing to assent to the authority of the Holy Father in this matter you are demonstrating that you are possibly Schismatic. Why would you do that?”
The insistance that you were right all along about certain things indicates to me that obedience isn’t high on your list of virtues.
I’m just saying. That’s what I read into what you posted earlier, without any prompting.
And yes, I am entitled to an opinion and to express an opinion of my brothers and sisters in Christ. It is the Pope who ultimately decides what happens from here.
I’m not sure why you believe footdragging should be insulated from criticism.
That the mass in the vernacular is equally valid to the tridentine mass.
That seems to be a sticky wicket.
“And yes, I am entitled to an opinion and to express an opinion of my brothers and sisters in Christ.”
Can you define the sin of detraction?
Can you define “Dogma”?
The statement that mass in the vernacular is equally valid to a tridentine mass, yes, that’s doctrinal.
Dogma is anything to do with the essential teachings of the church. Last I checked there was nothing in dogma requiring the use of Latin.
Can you define the sin of pride?
You didn’t answer my question.
Do you expect that this footdragging would escape criticism altogether?
The Church is way bigger than SSPX. Newsflash, it’s not all about you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.