SSPX: We wait for “serious debate” which will bring ecclesiastic authorities back to Tradition

WDTPRS ^ | July 19, 2012 | Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

[NYer]

At the SSPX site DICI we read the General Chapter Statement.

Bottom line: Not negative, but clarificatory. They left the door open for more discussions under Archbp. Di Noia.

You can read the whole thing there, but here is the most interesting part with my emphases and comments:

[...] We have recovered our profound unity in its essential mission: to preserve and defend the Catholic Faith, to form good priests, and to strive towards the restoration of Christendom. We have determined and approved the necessary conditions for an eventual canonical normalization. We have decided that, in that case, an extraordinary Chapter with deliberative vote will be convened beforehand.

[...]

The Chapter believes that the paramount duty of the Society, in the service which it intends to offer to the Church, is to continue, with God’s help, to profess the Catholic Faith in all its purity and integrity, with a determination matching the intensity of the constant attacks to which this very Faith is subjected nowadays.

For this reason it seems opportune that we reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the unique Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation; our faith in its monarchical constitution, desired by Our Lord himself, by which the supreme power of government over the universal Church belongs only to the Pope, Vicar of Christ on earth; our faith in the universal Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Creator of both the natural and the supernatural orders, to Whom every man and every society must submit. [A reference, I think, to the question of religious liberty.]

The Society continues to uphold the declarations and the teachings of the constant Magisterium of the Church in regard to all the novelties of the Second Vatican Council which remain tainted with errors, ["Pour toutes les nouveautés du Concile Vatican II qui restent entachées d’erreurs et pour les réformes qui en sont issues, la Fraternité ne peut que continuer à s’en tenir aux affirmations et enseignements du Magistère constant de l’Eglise..." If I read this correctly, they make a distinction between, on the one hand the Magisterium and, on the other, the teachings of Vatican II and the reforms that came from it, as if what pertains to Vatican II doesn't really belong to the "constant Magisterium". On the other hand, the SSPX would not see as error what we read in Lumen gentium about the Pope being able to teach infallibly. They would not say that what we read in Gaudium et spes concerning abortion as an abominable sin being in error. So, clearly, some teachings of the Council are fine. They can't be rejecting the entirety of the Council's textual content.] and also in regard to the reforms issued from it. We find our sure guide in this uninterrupted Magisterium which, by its teaching authority, transmits the revealed Deposit of Faith in perfect harmony with the truths that the entire Church has professed, always and everywhere. [Thus, since they perceive errors in what came from Vatican II, Vatican II can't be part of the Magisterium.]

The Society finds its guide as well in the constant Tradition of the Church, which transmits and will transmit until the end of times the teachings required to preserve the Faith and the salvation of souls, while waiting for the day when an open and serious debate will be possible which may allow the return to Tradition of the ecclesiastical authorities. ["...en attendant qu’un débat ouvert et sérieux, visant à un retour des autorités ecclésiastiques à la Tradition, soit rendu possible." The English is not entirely clear. Such a debate would, for them, aim at "ecclesiastical authorities" returning to Tradition. "Authorities" would include, I suppose, Benedict XVI. I hope the "ecclesiastical authorities" don't take that as being inflammatory. I suspect the SSPX did not intend it as inflammatory.]

We wish to unite ourselves to the others [sic] Christians persecuted in different countries of the world who are now suffering for the Catholic Faith, some even to the extent of martyrdom. Their blood, shed in union with the Victim of our altars, is the pledge for a true renewal of the Church in capite et membris, according to the old saying sanguis martyrum semen christianorum. [It seems that the see themselves as being persecuted, perhaps in the role of "confessors".]

“Finally, we turn our eyes to the Blessed Virgin Mary, who is also jealous of the privileges of her Divine Son, jealous of His glory, of His Kingdom on earth as in Heaven. How often has she intervened for the defense, even the armed defense, of Christendom against the enemies of the Kingdom of Our Lord! We entreat her to intervene today to chase the enemies out from inside the Church who are trying to destroy it more radically than its enemies from outside. May she deign to keep in the integrity of the Faith, in the love of the Church, in devotion to the Successor of Peter, all the members of the Society of St. Pius X and all the priests and faithful who labor alongside the Society, in order that she may both keep us from schism and preserve us from heresy.

[...]

Given at Ecône, on the 14th of July of the Year of the Lord 2012.

Déclaration du Chapitre général de la Fraternité Saint-Pie X
Dichiarazione del Capitolo generale della Fraternità Sacerdotale San Pio X
Declaración del Capítulo General de la Fraternidad Sacerdotal San Pío X
Grundsatzerklärung des Generalkapitels der Priesterbruderschaft St. Pius X.

Meanwhile, in “Eternal Rome”, there was issued a Communique concerning the SSPX:

Vatican City, (VIS) – Early this afternoon, the Holy See Press Office released the following English-language communique concerning the declaration which emerged from the General Chapter of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X.

“The recently concluded General Chapter of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X has addressed a declaration regarding the possibility of a canonical normalisation in the relationship of the Society and the Holy See. While it has been made public, the declaration remains primarily an internal document for study and discussion among the members of the Society.
“The Holy See has taken note of this declaration, but awaits the forthcoming official communication of the Priestly Society as their dialogue with the Pontifical Commission ‘Ecclesia Dei’ continues”.

So, the Holy See now waits for the SSPX to communicate officially with the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei“. An internal document is one thing, and what they tell the PCED is another. This statement, though internal to the members of the SSPX (priests) is, however, public. It is therefore also aimed at the people who support the SSPX. Over the years we have seen some bombastic public rhetoric even while Bp. Fellay has moved the SSPX into a dialogue (serious or not) with the Holy See.

On the other hand, I am not sure how entering into a “serious debate” with the aim of getting the authorities of the Holy See to “return to Tradition” is going to win them any points. Perhaps they will leave that part out of their next official communication with the Holy See.

In any event, perhaps this will keep the door open for new discussions with Archbishop Di Noia at the helm. Benedict XVI moved him there for a reason.

[MarkBsnr]

How about a Protestant or Jewish or Hindu or Buddhist baby that is aborted. Do you think that they go to eternal hellfire?

There's no difference between them. None will go to Hell.

Izzat so? Prove it.

Their parents might, however!

Depending on the Judge, so might you and/or I.

[NYer]

Where Peter is, THERE is the Church.

As much as I disagree with the disingenuous approach, I will credit the SPPX with recognizing the first mark of the true church. To the above, we can add: Where there are bishops under the pope, there is the Church, even if one is dealing with a progressivist bishop. Remember, the 12 Apostles included a renegade who turned traitor.

[MarkBsnr]

Where Peter is, THERE is the Church.

As much as I disagree with the disingenuous approach, I will credit the SPPX with recognizing the first mark of the true church. To the above, we can add: Where there are bishops under the pope, there is the Church, even if one is dealing with a progressivist bishop. Remember, the 12 Apostles included a renegade who turned traitor.

It is one thing to recognize. It is quite another to separate from the Church on a spectacular basis. At that point, it isn't about the theology, it is about the individual ego.

It has been well pointed out upstream that if individuals were more concerned about the Church, they'd stay in it and contest the goings-on, rather than pull out and pout.

Again, I ask what separates Lefebvre from Luther, Zwingli and Calvin? They thought that they were the true Catholics...

[NYer]

I agree wholeheartedly. For that reason, I posted the comment. We’re on the same track ;-)

[narses]

Again, I ask what separates Lefebvre from Luther, Zwingli and Calvin?

Let' see, did Luther reject dogmatic teachings of the Church? Did he reject any of the Sacraments? Did Calvin? Zwingli? Well, yes. They all did. And how many of the Sacraments or dogmas of the Church have the SSPX rejected? Oh, none? Maybe there is a difference?

[narses]

Remember, the 12 Apostles included a renegade who turned traitor.

Indeed. So should we blindly follow the Modern Judas types who promote heresy, who deny actual dogmatic teachings of the Church and who fill seminaries with left wing queers? Read "Goodbye, Good Men" by Michael Rose if you doubt these things happen.

[MarkBsnr]

Let' see, did Luther reject dogmatic teachings of the Church? Did he reject any of the Sacraments? Did Calvin? Zwingli? Well, yes. They all did. And how many of the Sacraments or dogmas of the Church have the SSPX rejected? Oh, none? Maybe there is a difference?

Then there is hope. The various traditionalist Catholics (Mel Gibson's father's bunch e.g.) also do not reject dogmatic teachings of the Church, or so we think. I'm not so sure about that bunch...

[MarkBsnr]

I agree wholeheartedly. For that reason, I posted the comment. We’re on the same track ;-)

Very good. When individuals think that they know Catholicism better than the Magisterium, that way lies madness, or at least Protestantism.

[narses]

Then there is hope.

There is, and more, we are certain that the Gates of Hell will not prevail. The Eternal Church will be here, today and forever.The SSPX is a tiny part of a giant, eternal structure but they are not either the whole Church nor a "new" church.

[ebb tide]

“Izzat so? Prove it.”

So you’re one of the ones who don’t believe in Limbo of the Unborn? I’m not surprised.

[MarkBsnr]

“Izzat so? Prove it.”

So you’re one of the ones who don’t believe in Limbo of the Unborn? I’m not surprised.

Put up or shut up. Prove it. Prove it from Scripture and from the Church Fathers. But prove it. No more mealy mouthed mantras.

[ebb tide]

You pose your hypothetical question to me about the fate of unborn children. I answer your question honestly. And now you demand proof of my answer?

Back at you: Are you going to Heaven?

Put up or shut up. Prove it.

[ebb tide]

Check your catechism. I don’t have time to educate you.

Catechism of the Catholic Church Sections 1213-1284

Or is the Catechism too good for you?

[MarkBsnr]

You pose your hypothetical question to me about the fate of unborn children. I answer your question honestly. And now you demand proof of my answer?

It is not hypothetical. Your answer is not honest. And you have no proof of what you say. I notice that you have ducked the whole issue of 'knowledge of salvation'. Are you saved? If so, how do you know? You claim that all aborted children go to heaven. Prove it.

Back at you: Are you going to Heaven?

Only the Judge can say. I am not the Judge.

[MarkBsnr]

Check your catechism. I don’t have time to educate you.

Gosh. Just when we were making quality time together.

Catechism of the Catholic Church Sections 1213-1284

\ Thank you for at least the indication that you have some knowledge of the Catechism. And the aborted babies fall within this section where?

Or is the Catechism too good for you?

It is a guide for my life. I do not presume to know Catholicism more than the writers or to define my own way according to my emotions, the state of my stomach, or whether my wife has bitched at me this morning over coffee.

[ebb tide]

I never said all aborted children go the heaven.

You asked me if aborted babies are damned to “eternal hellfire”? I said, “No”.

Big difference and you know it.

[Religion Moderator]

you know it.

Reading the mind of another Freeper is a form of "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.