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.
As was I. Being a Christian takes a lot of humility. Pride kills.
I can see where the SSPXers are coming from, but the same rationale could be applied to every existing schismatic group. And some like the Copts and the Assyrians have been in schism for over 1,500 years.
The Copts are still condemning Pope St. Leo the Great for “changing the faith” in the nature of Christ in 449 A.D. and accusing Catholics of being Nestorians among other things.
As a fellow convert, I can say it is easier for people like us because we discovered Catholicism. But it is harder for those who grew up as cradle Catholics to adjust or accept change.
Just look at how many Catholics left the Church as a result of the Vatican II changes. My father did. The changes made him think that Catholicism was a joke, so he became a Lutheran.
I’m sort of glad about that because I wouldn’t be here otherwise. Meaning he never would have married my mother otherwise.
Or the decision by the Holy Father to lift the excommunications acknowledging that the SSPX clergy are actually, in fact, not excommunicated?
>>The SSPX clergy were never excommunicated, but they still are under Paul VI’s 1976 decree suspending their orders.
Nontheless, a lot of their clergy and lay followers have what could still be called a schismatic mentality.
I’ve had my share of run ins with them at my Eastern Catholic parish to be very familiar with their attitudes.
And Cardinal Ratzinger has been quite harsh in his criticisms of the Novus Ordo mass.
In Revue Theologisches, Vol. 20, Feb. 1990, pgs. 103-104, then Cardinal Ratzinger stated:
The liturgical reform, in its concrete realization, has distanced itself even more from its origin. The result has not been a reanimation, but devastation. In place of the liturgy, fruit of a continual development, they have placed a fabricated liturgy. They have deserted a vital process of growth and becoming in order to substitute a fabrication.They did not want to continue the development, the organic maturing of something living through the centuries, and they replaced it, in the manner of technical production, by a fabrication, a banal product of the moment.
What happened after the Council was altogether different: instead of a liturgy fruit of continuous development, a fabricated liturgy was put in its place. A living growing process was abandoned and the fabrication started. There was no further wish to continue the organic evolution and maturation of the living being throughout the centuries and they were replaced -- as if in a technical production -- by a fabrication, a banal product of the moment. Gamber, with the vigilance of a true visionary and with the fearlessness of a true witness, opposed this falsification and tirelessly taught us the living fullness of a true liturgy, thanks to his incredibly rich knowledge of the sources. As a man who knew and who loved history, he showed us the multiple forms of the evolution and of the path of the liturgy; as a man who saw history from the inside, he saw in this development and in the fruit of this development the intangible reflection of the eternal liturgy, which is not the object of our action, but which may marvelously continue to blossom and to ripen, if we join its mystery intimately.
“It seems to me what Fellay is saying is that NONE of the councils are core doctrine to the Catholic Faith.”
Where does H.E. say ANYTHING like that?
“You stated that you believe the Pope was wrong.”
Really? Where?
From Sacrosanctum Concilium
7. To accomplish so great a work, Christ is always present in His Church, especially in her liturgical celebrations. He is present in the sacrifice of the Mass, not only in the person of His minister, “the same now offering, through the ministry of priests, who formerly offered himself on the cross” [20], but especially under the Eucharistic species. By His power He is present in the sacraments, so that when a man baptizes it is really Christ Himself who baptizes [21]. He is present in His word, since it is He Himself who speaks when the holy scriptures are read in the Church. He is present, lastly, when the Church prays and sings, for He promised: “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them”
So yes, this is in the catechism too. All sacraments are equally valid irrespective of the language in which they are performed.
He lists what he believes ought to be the core doctrine of the faith. He does not list the ecumenical councils.
“You stated that you believe the Pope was wrong.”
Really? Where?
{{{CRICKETS}}}
Easier and harder. The point is that we were even OLDER schismatics, the essential differences between protestants and Catholics date back to the councils from Trent onwards. SSPX is just a schism over the most recent council.
So they aren’t really ‘protestants’ per se, but there is no difference in their rejection of Vatican II as from the rejection of Trent.
For us to ‘climb over the fence’, we had to first admit that we were wrong and then start tackling the later councils. This is the hard part. Fellay et al aren’t at the point where they are willing to admit that they have it wrong.
Really? What exactly did H.E. say? Show me the quote that denies all of the Church Councils, as you claim. Go ahead. And show me where I said that the Pope was wrong. Go ahead.
“You stated that you believe the Pope was wrong.”
Really? Where?
“You stated that you believe the Pope was wrong.”
Really? Where?
{{{CRICKETS}}}“You stated that you believe the Pope was wrong.”
Really? Where?
{{{CRICKETS}}}
I don’t know why people can’t trust Pope Benedict on this issue. He knows what he’s doing and will resolve this. Maybe not as fast as some people would like, but the Church moves at it’s own pace.
I don’t know why people can’t trust Pope Benedict on this issue. He knows what he’s doing and will resolve this.I agree.
Maybe not as fast as some people would like, but the Church moves at it’s own pace.For the Church, this has moved FAST!
You failed to answer my challenge regarding Ss. Peter and Paul. Nevertheless...
“Are you arguing *against* papal infalliability?”
No. Papal infallibility only “kicks in” when the papal statement is made from the chair of Peter. What’s more, an infallible teaching can never be contradicted, even by a subsequent pope. Therefore, no pope is free to teach error and no Catholic is free to accept error. Deal with it.
“You stated that you believe the Pope was wrong.”
Really? Where?
{{{CRICKETS}}}
True, but for human beings, sometimes it doesn't feel fast enough.
Protestants rebelled before Trent, which only restated and did not contradict previous doctrine. Vatican II contradicts Trent and many other Church councils and papal encyclicals. Deal with it.
For most folks this is a non event. The Motu Proprio acknowledging that the Latin Mass is, and has ALWAYS been licit was a big deal and now everywhere the Latin Mass is now available - THAT was a BIG deal. The SSPX is a minor, side issue. That folks calumize them and accuse others of sin to further that demonization is bad, but again, only a very few people even know about this.
“True, but for human beings, sometimes it doesn’t feel fast enough.”
Sometimes the Church acts so slowly it is hard to believe that they think souls are being lost due to errors; “attriting out” unorthodox leaders via retirement is hardly helping matters.
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.