Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Augstine Baker on March 25, 2012, 02:38:51 AM
-
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2012/03/bishop-fellay-and-msgr-pozzo.html
Bishop Fellay and Msgr Pozzo © Piusbruderschaft
Edit: A special announcement is to take place in Germany about the Preamble which will contain new information. The day will also be the anniversary of the death of the Society's former superior, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre who died 21 years ago in 1991.
Tomorrow a public statement will be read from the pulpit in the Priories of the German District of the Society of St. Piux X regarding the state of negotiations with Rome.
(kreu.net) Today the website of the District of the Society of St. Pius X has produced a chronology of the talks with Rome.
-
Do the Germans have any information for us?
-
So, what was the announcement?
-
Reading from the pulpit of all the Churches and Chapels of the German District of the Society of St. Pius X. As translated from District website:
Dear Faithful,
On the 16th of March Cardinal Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for Doctrine and the Faith, presented a letter with clarifications in Rome, to the General Superior of the Society, Bishop Fellay, in which we will be called upon, to give a final affirmation of the Doctrinal Preamble of September 14th, as it has happened till now.
The final deadline for an answer is going to be April 15th, 2012. Certainly you have surely already learned this partly in the media. We are therefore arriving at a decisive point.
If the letter also has struck an objectionable tone, yet it indeed gives justifiable hopes for a peaceful solution. In case this situations happens, it would strengthen all of the important protective powers in the Church; in the other case, these would be significantly weakened and demoralized. Therefore, what is uppermost is not our Society, rather the health of the Church.
For this reason we ask the fervent, persistent and beseeching prayers from all of our faithful and all Catholics, so that God, through the salvific sufferings of his only begotten son, lead His Church from Her crisis, and give her in the holy resurrection of Jesus new life, new strength and flowering.
Stuttgart, 22 March 2012
Father Franz Schmidberger, District Superior
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2012/03/sspx-germany-letter-holds-out.html
-
Neocons don't want to read these things in the context of the current situation in Germany with respect to the "Call to Disobedience" and other dissidents, like the former Archbishop of Milan, who was again causing scandal in the Italian press recently:
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2012/03/jesuit-cardinal-defends-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.html
-
Reading from the pulpit of all the Churches and Chapels of the German District of the Society of St. Pius X. As translated from District website:
Dear Faithful,
On the 16th of March Cardinal Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for Doctrine and the Faith, presented a letter with clarifications in Rome, to the General Superior of the Society, Bishop Fellay, in which we will be called upon, to give a final affirmation of the Doctrinal Preamble of September 14th, as it has happened till now.
The final deadline for an answer is going to be April 15th, 2012. Certainly you have surely already learned this partly in the media. We are therefore arriving at a decisive point.
If the letter also has struck an objectionable tone, yet it indeed gives justifiable hopes for a peaceful solution. In case this situations happens, it would strengthen all of the important protective powers in the Church; in the other case, these would be significantly weakened and demoralized. Therefore, what is uppermost is not our Society, rather the health of the Church.
For this reason we ask the fervent, persistent and beseeching prayers from all of our faithful and all Catholics, so that God, through the salvific sufferings of his only begotten son, lead His Church from Her crisis, and give her in the holy resurrection of Jesus new life, new strength and flowering.
Stuttgart, 22 March 2012
Father Franz Schmidberger, District Superior
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2012/03/sspx-germany-letter-holds-out.html
So, Fr. Schmidberger here confirm that Bishop Fellay is looking for a "peaceful solution?"
Is that the big news?
That Bishop Fellay's readiness to taker a deal with Rome (as per his Feb 2 admission at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary sermon) is reaffirmed here by Fr. Schmidberger?
Despite the fact that none of the doctrinal issues are resolved?
-
What's new here is that despite the unpleasant tone of the letter demanding an answer by April, that there is a reasonable hope of reconciliation.
No one's saying anything about whether or not the Society will sign a docuмent forbidding them from criticizing a Pastoral Council.
There are already man within the Church criticizing the Council, and the most fervent advocates of the Council don't even abide by it, so it would be ridiculous to demand that the SSPX abide by it, wouldn't it?
-
What's new here is that despite the unpleasant tone of the letter demanding an answer by April, that there is a reasonable hope of reconciliation.
No one's saying anything about whether or not the Society will sign a docuмent forbidding them from criticizing a Pastoral Council.
There are already man within the Church criticizing the Council, and the most fervent advocates of the Council don't even abide by it, so it would be ridiculous to demand that the SSPX abide by it, wouldn't it?
Which is tantamount to saying that "there is reasonable hope of signing a practical solution, despite the fact that all the doctrinal issues remain."
And a reaffirmation that the utterance of Bishop Fellay on Feb 2 was no mere spontaneous mis-speak, with regard to his willingness to take a Roman deal.
Which is a betrayal of the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre.
And an open divergence from the path he left the SSPX.
"Campos should serve as a lesson to us." -Bishop Fellay (2002)
-
What's new here is that despite the unpleasant tone of the letter demanding an answer by April, that there is a reasonable hope of reconciliation.
No one's saying anything about whether or not the Society will sign a docuмent forbidding them from criticizing a Pastoral Council.
There are already man within the Church criticizing the Council, and the most fervent advocates of the Council don't even abide by it, so it would be ridiculous to demand that the SSPX abide by it, wouldn't it?
Which is tantamount to saying that "there is reasonable hope of signing a practical solution, despite the fact that all the doctrinal issues remain."
And a reaffirmation that the utterance of Bishop Fellay on Feb 2 was no mere spontaneous mis-speak, with regard to his willingness to take a Roman deal.
Which is a betrayal of the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre.
And an open divergence from the path he left the SSPX.
"Campos should serve as a lesson to us." -Bishop Fellay (2002)
It is what it is. This is another trial balloon and the SSPX is trying to build consensus among those under its care, while also asking for everyone to pray.
-
What's new here is that despite the unpleasant tone of the letter demanding an answer by April, that there is a reasonable hope of reconciliation.
No one's saying anything about whether or not the Society will sign a docuмent forbidding them from criticizing a Pastoral Council.
There are already man within the Church criticizing the Council, and the most fervent advocates of the Council don't even abide by it, so it would be ridiculous to demand that the SSPX abide by it, wouldn't it?
Which is tantamount to saying that "there is reasonable hope of signing a practical solution, despite the fact that all the doctrinal issues remain."
And a reaffirmation that the utterance of Bishop Fellay on Feb 2 was no mere spontaneous mis-speak, with regard to his willingness to take a Roman deal.
Which is a betrayal of the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre.
And an open divergence from the path he left the SSPX.
"Campos should serve as a lesson to us." -Bishop Fellay (2002)
It is what it is. This is another trial balloon and the SSPX is trying to build consensus among those under its care, while also asking for everyone to pray.
Agreed.
The parishioners need to keep their wits about them, and not be misdirected:
The issue is not "what can the SSPX get from Rome," as Bishop Fellay seems to want to frame the conversation.
The issue is how can the SSPX preserve the priesthood, sacraments, and doctrine until Rome comes back to the Faith.
The status quo preserves this mission.
A deal, while Rome is still modernist, puts it in jeopardy.
For that reason, ABL required a settling of doctrinal issues before discussing the practical/canonical.
-
The demographic ascendancy of the SSPX and its position critical of the Bishops and Liberals working within the Church has been devastating to the illusory legitimacy the Left clique established for themselves after the Council.
Now that a lot of these men are facing death, they will reap the whirlwind for their glib overconfidence so evident in the way they have been treating faithful priests in the past, and more recently, and poignantly as in the case of Cardinal Wuerel to Father Guarnizo.
These ecclesiastical lynchings often happened with little comment, perhaps raising the ire of a handful of regular readers of the Wanderer or the Remnant, but now engage far larger groups of people, and even threaten the pocketbooks of precious prelates with gold cuff links who have an aversion to preaching Christ crucified...
-
As I suspected, a deal was apparently already struck when BF talked to Levada for two hours. The Roman "ultimatum" is all theater to placate the left. They want it to appear as if the Society caved to save face. In reality, Rome is desperate and probably agreed to give away the store to get the Society "in." That's my take. The deal is done. This is all theater to placate the Pope's critics. I'd be shocked if the Society isn't "regularized" on April 15.
If the Society was planning to reject Rome's offer, this letter would be ratcheting up the rhetoric rather than building hope. It's a preparatory letter signaling "get ready."
-
I agree with stevus. This is just a mere dramatic build-up on Rome's part to make it look like the Society caved in. In reality, Rome wants the Society in. Can't have modernist ecuмenism if you don't bring everyone in, do you?
-
Which is a betrayal of the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre.
You keep repeating this calumny ad nauseum, but fail to demonstrate how precisely this "betrayal" has come about. Would you care to show us how one could remain "faithful" to the "principles" of ABL? Would you care to tell us how a "doctrinal resolution" will be effected? Do the "principles" of ABL delve into such detail? Where might I find these principles laid out; your former (single!) citation was a bit ambiguous. If you intend to carry on like this, at least be a little more specific. What would such a resolution look like on a practical level? What would happen after that? Which doctrines must be resolved in order for the SSPX to even speak with the Pope?
Do you even comprehend the notion of the greater common good of the Church? It seems your entire frame of reference for supporting the SSPX is their relations with Rome as if this had anything to do with the Faith as it is preserved at your chapel. Do you now expect Catholics to go beyond the faith and determine their course of action based upon the presence or absence of legal recognition? That they must hand-wring and conjecture about events that have yet to take place all the while pretending that said events will determine where one goes to Mass? I think it's safe to say that such a notion is certainly foreign to the "principles" of ABL. This is merely your opinion my friend and a very ill-formed one at that. If you think so little of the SSPX and its priests, why don't you find another place to go? Of course, your direction will not be based on anything remotely relating to the Faith, but rather whether your opinion is satisfied regarding issues that shouldn't even concern you.
If the day comes when the SSPX priests start perverting the faith, at your chapel, then you will have to find another place to go, until then you are simply flirting with a Protestant mentality of the Church.
-
Caminus, what problems -- if any -- do you see with the SSPX today? You seem to support a deal with Rome. To be honest, I'm scratching my head as to why.
-
Which is a betrayal of the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre.
You keep repeating this calumny ad nauseum, but fail to demonstrate how precisely this "betrayal" has come about. Would you care to show us how one could remain "faithful" to the "principles" of ABL? Would you care to tell us how a "doctrinal resolution" will be effected? Do the "principles" of ABL delve into such detail? Where might I find these principles laid out; your former (single!) citation was a bit ambiguous. If you intend to carry on like this, at least be a little more specific. What would such a resolution look like on a practical level? What would happen after that? Which doctrines must be resolved in order for the SSPX to even speak with the Pope?
Do you even comprehend the notion of the greater common good of the Church? It seems your entire frame of reference for supporting the SSPX is their relations with Rome as if this had anything to do with the Faith as it is preserved at your chapel. Do you now expect Catholics to go beyond the faith and determine their course of action based upon the presence or absence of legal recognition? That they must hand-wring and conjecture about events that have yet to take place all the while pretending that said events will determine where one goes to Mass? I think it's safe to say that such a notion is certainly foreign to the "principles" of ABL. This is merely your opinion my friend and a very ill-formed one at that. If you think so little of the SSPX and its priests, why don't you find another place to go? Of course, your direction will not be based on anything remotely relating to the Faith, but rather whether your opinion is satisfied regarding issues that shouldn't even concern you.
If the day comes when the SSPX priests start perverting the faith, at your chapel, then you will have to find another place to go, until then you are simply flirting with a Protestant mentality of the Church.
Caminus-
You are a very tiring person to deal with.
I will probably have to put you on "ignore" after this response.
Here are your answers.
1) For a run down of ABL's post-1988 principle of "no discussion of a practical solution before the doctrinal issues are resolved," please see all the previous posts I supplied quoting him saying same;
2) How does one stay loyal to the principles of ABL?
Answer: Break off any discussions pertaining to a practical solution until the doctrinal issues are resolved in Rome (i.e., Until they come back to the Faith). Pretty difficult to understand, eh?
3) How will a doctrinal resolution be effected?
Answer: Rome will come back to the Faith of our Fathers through an interior conversion by the grace of God.
4) Do the principles of ABL delve into such detail? Answer: ABL stated many times that when Rome came back to the Faith, we would be right there waiting for them.
5) Where might I find this principle laid out?
Answer: You could start with the quote I provided. You could then email Bishop WIlliamson (which would lead to a quite humorous conversation, I think: Trying to convince him that ABL never held this principle -lol).
6) What would such a resolution look like on the practical level?
Answer: Beside the point. We are talking about ABL's principle of "no practical solution before the doctrinal issues are resolved. What happens after that is matter for a separate discussion.
7) Which doctrinal issues must be resolved before the SSPX would talk to Rome about a practical solution?
Answer: A good start would be those covered in the 2 years of discussions, which made no headway. Why throw more issues onto the fire, when they can't even accept those most basic contradictions put before them by the SSPX? But presuming those were settled (i.e., Rome converted and accepted the traditional teaching in these matters), we could move on to all the other issues.
8) Do you comprehand the notion of the greater common good of the Cahtolic Church?
Answer: Yes, but you do not. If you did, you would not oppose the principle of ABL, which was designed to restore sanity to the entire Church, versus your preference, which at best would normalize things for trads in a new trad ghetto.
9) It seems your entire frame of reference for supporting the SSPX is based on their relations with Rome...
Answer: Yes. Because the SSPX has held onto the truth by rejecting the teachings of modernist Rome. They have managed to do this by retaining independance from them. This independance is tp persist until Rome converts, at which time doctrinal negotiations will not be necessary.
10) ...as if this has anything to do with preserving the Faith at the SSPX chapel. Answer: Try telling this to Campos. It also ignores the greater good of restoring sanity to the universal church in favor of normalcy only for the trad ghetto (i.e., a lack of charity).
11) Do you now expect Catholics to go beyond the faith and determine their course of action based upon the presence or absence of legal recognition? Answer: Leaving aside the hint of legalism implicit in this question (i.e., You would have Catholics put their Faith in danger because of legal norms, which themselves are implemented to preserve, rather than destroy, the Faith), the course of action is determined by Catholic moral theology, not whim. Catholics are not permitted to endanger their Faith, and certainly not because of a legalistic, Pharisaical notion of being trapped by canon law into doing so. SO long as a state of necessity exists, Catholics are compelled to seek their spiritual goods from clergy who will not put these goods in danger. Once again, we come to a stunning ignorance of the doctrine of necessity (more rampant on this particular website than any others currently up in the trad world, probably because of the high sede population; they don't want to acknowledge it because it destroys their position; conservatives like you don't want to acknowledge it because it destroys your papolatry and legalism stemming from same).
12) That they must hand-wring and conjecture about events that have yet to take place all the while pretending that said events will determine where one goes to Mass?
Answer: The blame for this is on Bishop Fellay for keeping his intentions and negotiations secret, not on ABL for laying out a very prudent principle.
13) I think it's safe to say that such a notion is certainly foreign to the "principles" of ABL.
Answer: Only you could find the principle of ABL foreign to the principle of ABL.
14) This is merely your opinion my friend and a very ill-formed one at that. Answer: Yes, and that of the SSPX for the last 24 years....uh, oh yeah, and that of ABL (in the citation you are trying to practice CRIMETHINK to avoid).
15) If you think so little of the SSPX and its priests, why don't you find another place to go?
Answer: Uh, OK, if we are going to start making stuff up, then I will ask you to please convert from Buddhism.
16) Of course, your direction will not be based on anything remotely relating to the Faith, but rather whether your opinion is satisfied regarding issues that shouldn't even concern you.
Answer: It is interesting to note your opinion that the outcome of negotiations between Rome and the SSPX do not concern the laity; you would have a hard time convincing any SSPXer I know of that.
17) If the day comes when the SSPX priests start perverting the faith, at your chapel, then you will have to find another place to go, until then you are simply flirting with a Protestant mentality of the Church.
Answer: First half of statement is correct; second half of statement is typical conservative party line.
-
1. You seriously expect anyone who understands the mind of ABL to reject a 'no strings attached' canonical regularization? That's laughable. You can provide no docuмentation supporting such a notion. I think you need to explain to us on what possible grounds would you reject such legal recognition.
2. When you say Rome must convert to the Faith, you must be speaking improperly. If you mean 'conversion' in it's formal sense, and considering that by 'Rome' you mean the person of the Pope, then it must necessarily follow that you consider the putative Pope to be a non-Catholic simpliciter. If that is the case then I guess you'll have to explain the foolishness of the SSPX in dealing with a man who is a non-Catholic usurper. Or do you think that upon his "conversion" he will spontaneously be elevated to the Papacy and will then immediately turn to the SSPX with open arms?
3. Regarding Protestant ecclesiology, that is no mere cheap shot. You're not approaching the matter logically or objectively according to your duties as a Catholic layman. If and only when the Faith is perverted in some manner would you be compelled to change parishes. Until such a time occurs, and change would be predicated on something other than the faith, which is a particularly "Protestant" habit of mind. If such a move were to occur, then you would also have the task of explaining to your family the oddity of changing their parish while the Faith at both locations remains unchanged.
4. You really don't seem to grasp the common good viz. the Society. Here it is in a nutshell. As Bishop Williamson noted, authority and those who retain the integrity of the faith are in an unnatural state of separation. Being unnatural, there is the inherent need to rectify the problem. Once this problem is rectified, all those Catholics who are of good will, disposed to receive tradition, will then fill the pews of the Society, which is simply the better part of the Church. Resources will also come. As that part of the Church grows, the dead part (a much larger portion) will formally die and break off, thus opening the possibility of electing a traditional Pope and restoring the Church.
You have to think outside the 'box' of the SSPX and consider the Church as a whole. A Church which contains many who would not benefit from traditional priests were it not for a canonical regularization. You mock such a notion as implying a 'ghetto of tradition'. Sorry, but we are ALREADY IN a 'ghetto of tradition'.
-
One more thing. You keep qualifying your position as ABL's 'post 1988' principle. Principles don't change, but the application of principles do vary. Are you accusing ABL of being duplicitous regarding a fundamental principle? Or do you admit that circuмstances might change and thus the application of certain principles might vary, say, for example, that Rome now will offer total freedom of the SSPX canonically speaking and that no hint of doctrinal compromise will be required, unlike the protocol ABL signed and then withdrew -- a protocol which if Bishop Fellay signed or even considered, you would accuse him of betrayal.
-
1. You seriously expect anyone who understands the mind of ABL to reject a 'no strings attached' canonical regularization? That's laughable. You can provide no docuмentation supporting such a notion. I think you need to explain to us on what possible grounds would you reject such legal recognition.
2. When you say Rome must convert to the Faith, you must be speaking improperly. If you mean 'conversion' in it's formal sense, and considering that by 'Rome' you mean the person of the Pope, then it must necessarily follow that you consider the putative Pope to be a non-Catholic simpliciter. If that is the case then I guess you'll have to explain the foolishness of the SSPX in dealing with a man who is a non-Catholic usurper. Or do you think that upon his "conversion" he will spontaneously be elevated to the Papacy and will then immediately turn to the SSPX with open arms?
3. Regarding Protestant ecclesiology, that is no mere cheap shot. You're not approaching the matter logically or objectively according to your duties as a Catholic layman. If and only when the Faith is perverted in some manner would you be compelled to change parishes. Until such a time occurs, and change would be predicated on something other than the faith, which is a particularly "Protestant" habit of mind. If such a move were to occur, then you would also have the task of explaining to your family the oddity of changing their parish while the Faith at both locations remains unchanged.
4. You really don't seem to grasp the common good viz. the Society. Here it is in a nutshell. As Bishop Williamson noted, authority and those who retain the integrity of the faith are in an unnatural state of separation. Being unnatural, there is the inherent need to rectify the problem. Once this problem is rectified, all those Catholics who are of good will, disposed to receive tradition, will then fill the pews of the Society, which is simply the better part of the Church. Resources will also come. As that part of the Church grows, the dead part (a much larger portion) will formally die and break off, thus opening the possibility of electing a traditional Pope and restoring the Church.
You have to think outside the 'box' of the SSPX and consider the Church as a whole. A Church which contains many who would not benefit from traditional priests were it not for a canonical regularization. You mock such a notion as implying a 'ghetto of tradition'. Sorry, but we are ALREADY IN a 'ghetto of tradition'.
You seem to be caught in a loop, or stuck in a rut or mental block of some kind.
I don't think I can help you.
I think it would be most productive for me to simply refer you to all that has been written every time you think you have a point, and consult that.
This way you can argue with yourself until exhaustion, then wake up and do it again to your heart's content.
Good luck.
-
A stage exit just when your baseless rhetoric is challenged? Typical. I think the intelligent reader can see just who is victim of a mental block.
-
A stage exit just when your baseless rhetoric is challenged? Typical. I think the intelligent reader can see just who is victim of a mental block.
Smelling salts may be effective for you. :fryingpan:
-
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/the-vatican/detail/articolo/lefebvriani-lefebvrians-lefebrianos-13844/
-
A stage exit just when your baseless rhetoric is challenged? Typical. I think the intelligent reader can see just who is victim of a mental block.
Smelling salts may be effective for you. :fryingpan:
An evasive coward who ignores anyone that challenges the status quo of his self-constructed opinion machine.
-
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/the-vatican/detail/articolo/lefebvriani-lefebvrians-lefebrianos-13844/
Mgr. Fellay himself had said that there were no real difficulties in terms of the acceptance of “the profession of the faith” and of the whole preamble, which states that the Second Vatican Council is to be interpreted according to the hermeneutics proposed by Benedict XVI.
And we wonder why they don't tell us what it says. So they can do a hat trick. And then the SSPX fanatics will tell us there's no contradiction with their previous position. Sounds like the position of Benedict XVI on Vatican II. Which apparently they will be agreeing with.
So what was the point of forming the SSPX again?
-
1. You seriously expect anyone who understands the mind of ABL to reject a 'no strings attached' canonical regularization? That's laughable. You can provide no docuмentation supporting such a notion. I think you need to explain to us on what possible grounds would you reject such legal recognition.
2. When you say Rome must convert to the Faith, you must be speaking improperly. If you mean 'conversion' in it's formal sense, and considering that by 'Rome' you mean the person of the Pope, then it must necessarily follow that you consider the putative Pope to be a non-Catholic simpliciter. If that is the case then I guess you'll have to explain the foolishness of the SSPX in dealing with a man who is a non-Catholic usurper. Or do you think that upon his "conversion" he will spontaneously be elevated to the Papacy and will then immediately turn to the SSPX with open arms?
3. Regarding Protestant ecclesiology, that is no mere cheap shot. You're not approaching the matter logically or objectively according to your duties as a Catholic layman. If and only when the Faith is perverted in some manner would you be compelled to change parishes. Until such a time occurs, and change would be predicated on something other than the faith, which is a particularly "Protestant" habit of mind. If such a move were to occur, then you would also have the task of explaining to your family the oddity of changing their parish while the Faith at both locations remains unchanged.
4. You really don't seem to grasp the common good viz. the Society. Here it is in a nutshell. As Bishop Williamson noted, authority and those who retain the integrity of the faith are in an unnatural state of separation. Being unnatural, there is the inherent need to rectify the problem. Once this problem is rectified, all those Catholics who are of good will, disposed to receive tradition, will then fill the pews of the Society, which is simply the better part of the Church. Resources will also come. As that part of the Church grows, the dead part (a much larger portion) will formally die and break off, thus opening the possibility of electing a traditional Pope and restoring the Church.
You have to think outside the 'box' of the SSPX and consider the Church as a whole. A Church which contains many who would not benefit from traditional priests were it not for a canonical regularization. You mock such a notion as implying a 'ghetto of tradition'. Sorry, but we are ALREADY IN a 'ghetto of tradition'.
This is nonsense.
-
Why's that?
-
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/the-vatican/detail/articolo/lefebvriani-lefebvrians-lefebrianos-13844/
Mgr. Fellay himself had said that there were no real difficulties in terms of the acceptance of “the profession of the faith” and of the whole preamble, which states that the Second Vatican Council is to be interpreted according to the hermeneutics proposed by Benedict XVI.
And we wonder why they don't tell us what it says. So they can do a hat trick. And then the SSPX fanatics will tell us there's no contradiction with their previous position. Sounds like the position of Benedict XVI on Vatican II. Which apparently they will be agreeing with.
So what was the point of forming the SSPX again?
I'm an SSPX fanatic, but I see a HUUUUUGE contradiction.
If this is what they really have to agree to.
Which would of course be impossible to accept.
-
which states that the Second Vatican Council is to be interpreted according to the hermeneutics proposed by Benedict XVI.
If this is what the preamble says, and the SSPX accepts it, then what was the point of Si Si Non Non, the Angelus, the endless sermons of the SSPX on these matters?
Was it just to manipulate people and corral people until they were ready to accept Vatican II according to the hermeneutics of Father Ratzinger?
-
Why's that?
Because it is outrageous to assume that the SSPX "reconciling" with Rome would be good. Not until Rome converts to Tradition first. I think Archbishop LeFebvre summed it up nicely:
"If they excommunicate us, we shall consider ourselves excommunicated from Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ". -Archbishop LeFebvre
-
which states that the Second Vatican Council is to be interpreted according to the hermeneutics proposed by Benedict XVI.
If this is what the preamble says, and the SSPX accepts it, then what was the point of Si Si Non Non, the Angelus, the endless sermons of the SSPX on these matters?
Was it just to manipulate people and corral people until they were ready to accept Vatican II according to the hermeneutics of Father Ratzinger?
1) Regarding your first sentence: Bravo!
2) Regarding your 2nd sentence: No, it would be because Bishop Fellay does not agree with ABL's principle that there shall be no discussion of practical solutione before the doctrinal issues are resolved.
-
which states that the Second Vatican Council is to be interpreted according to the hermeneutics proposed by Benedict XVI.
2) Regarding your 2nd sentence: No, it would be because Bishop Fellay does not agree with ABL's principle that there shall be no discussion of practical solutione before the doctrinal issues are resolved.
How would they be unresolved, if they accept the Council interpreted according to the hermeneutics proposed by Benedict XVI?
Seems like concession of a fundamental principle to me.
-
Why's that?
Because it is outrageous to assume that the SSPX "reconciling" with Rome would be good. Not until Rome converts to Tradition first. I think Archbishop LeFebvre summed it up nicely:
"If they excommunicate us, we shall consider ourselves excommunicated from Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ". -Archbishop LeFebvre
1. What do you think "reconcile" means?
2. Do you think ABL literally thought Rome was synonymous with Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ or do you think that ABL was using the term in a figurative sense pertaining the the underlying causes of the destruction of the Faith?
-
Benedict's "hermenuetic" has been demostrated by SSPX theologians to be insufficient and even contradictory, therefore I seriously doubt that the SSPX will find themselves faced with accepting a non-binding private opinion of the Pope regarding interpretive methods. Thus I also seriously doubt the veracity of the reporting. But we shall see.
-
which states that the Second Vatican Council is to be interpreted according to the hermeneutics proposed by Benedict XVI.
2) Regarding your 2nd sentence: No, it would be because Bishop Fellay does not agree with ABL's principle that there shall be no discussion of practical solutione before the doctrinal issues are resolved.
How would they be unresolved, if they accept the Council interpreted according to the hermeneutics proposed by Benedict XVI?
Seems like concession of a fundamental principle to me.
You are actually agreeing with me.
Accepting BXVI's bogus "hermeneutic" (where in the heck did this stupid word come from anyway!!!) would be a false resolution in order to sign an agreement.
-
PS: I see Caminus is lighting up the board with more posts. I have him on ignore, so I can't read them, but I can pretty much guess what they say anyway: The same thing as his last 20 posts on this issue? Someone let me know if I am right :roll-laugh2:
-
1. What do you think "reconcile" means?
Rome should be reconciling with Tradition before the Society reconciles with them.
2. Do you think ABL literally thought Rome was synonymous with Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ or do you think that ABL was using the term in a figurative sense pertaining the the underlying causes of the destruction of the Faith?
Well, Rome was infiltrated by Freemasons, and the theology of Vatican II is basically Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. Of course Rome itself is not Freemasonic, but it was infiltrated by Masons. I hope that makes sense; I can clarify if need-be.
-
PS: I see Caminus is lighting up the board with more posts. I have him on ignore, so I can't read them, but I can pretty much guess what they say anyway: The same thing as his last 20 posts on this issue? Someone let me know if I am right :roll-laugh2:
That's too bad. Discussion on this is good, and has been fruitful, and I think you both make good points. I hope you reconsider.
SpiritusSanctus isn't making any sense (logically speaking) and seems to bee too eager to just argue with him.
-
SpiritusSanctus isn't making any sense (logically speaking) and seems to bee too eager to just argue with him.
How so? My point is that Archbishop LeFebvre would not have approved of any "reconciliation" unless Rome converted first. If you want to put your trust in someone who has shown his stance is much different from ABL, go ahead. That's up to you. But to do so is what doesn't make sense.