Quote from: Caminus

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: s2srea

Quote from: Telesphorus

This isn't a private debate of theologians who have the same Faith trying to determine how Church teachings can be properly expressed.  These are two sides, negotiating Church doctrine, coming at the question from positions that are fundamentally irreconcilable.  The reason to keep it secret is to conceal the fact that there are negotiations going on - doctrine can't be negotiated.

You don't know that doctrine is being negotiated Tele...

The Vatican sends a draft, the SSPX sends back suggested changes.  That's negotiation.

No, that's called correcting the Vatican and setting forth one's position.  By your standard, any kind of interaction must be construed as "negotiation" or "compromising."  One wonders how you can even engage in debate without falling under the sword of your own self-sustained delusion.  

Your reply to my post was but a regurgitation of your previous statement so I really don't see any need to further engage.  Your imagination is second only to the artifically verbose and affected "Wessex" whose concocted posts are barely intelligible but nevertheless flow from a fecund, albeit dark, imagination.  

Nice try, Caminus.

"A rose by any other name is but a rose just the same."

Bishop Fellay is given a preamble in which he is asked to accept the new catechism, etc.  

If he accepts it, there is no negotiation.

If he sends something else back, it is negotiation.

Quote from: nadieimportante

I heard myself, in person, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, say with shock, that they had theological discussions with Rome for 2 years, and the preamble mentions not one word about it. That it simply says (my words) this is what we'll give you (Rome will give the SSPX) if you accept us as we are, Vatican II and all.

Three Bishops of the SSPX are against it, Bishop Fellay can't act alone, he does not own the SSPX properties, he can be removed as the Superior General. He can take people with him, priests and laity, but he can't take the properties. That  said, I doubt he will do that. Don't be fooled, the SSPX bishops are very close.

Maurice Pinay's latest Blog on the subject is an outstanding read...

Also, if I'm not mistaken, +Fellay's term is up in 2012.

Church Council Up for Discussion, Not "The h0Ɩ0cαųst"
Bp. Fellay has given an 'interview' in his familiar style intended to dispel suspicions raised by his secretive negotiations with the suspicious characters in Rome where "there is no lack of indiscretions!" The 'interview' doesn't accomplish its goal.

The 'interview' is largely unremarkable: reassuring words, summary deflection of justified suspicion and criticism, summary dismissal of internet channels not under Fellay control, redirection of focus back onto an apparition claimed by 3 children in Portugal 100 years ago, reemploying the busywork of tens of millions of rosaries--all very familiar and predictable. The 'interview' can be read here:

http://www.dici.org/en/news/interview-with-bishop-bernard-fellay-superior-general-of-the-society-of-st-pius-x-the-society-of-st-pius-x-and-the-doctrinal-preamble/

One item mentioned in the 'interview' is very relevant to us here. I quote:


"... leeway has been allowed for a 'legitimate discussion' about certain points of the [Second Vatican] Council."

Note that the Novus Ordo Church allows 'discussion' of its own teaching. In this context, 'discussion' concerns doubts and outright denials. The SSPX denies that certain points contained within the authoritative docuмents of the Novus Ordo Church's Second Vatican Council can be reconciled with the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church. The Novus Ordo has allowed the SSPX to present its case to this effect in doctrinal 'dialogues' over the past two years. The Novus Ordo is now negotiating an arrangement to bring the SSPX into 'full communion' while allowing discussion of doubts of its own authoritative teachings. This was also stated in a February 2009 statement from the Pope's Secretary of State:
"... the Holy See will not fail, in ways judged opportune, to engage with the interested parties in examining outstanding questions, so as to attain a full and satisfactory resolution of the problems that caused this painful rupture."

Note, however, that this typically lenient allowance pertaining to the Novus Ordo's own teachings is immediately followed by a mandate in absolute terms virtually unseen in Rome in the past 100 years:

"The positions of Bishop Williamson with regard to the Shoah are absolutely unacceptable and firmly rejected by the Holy Father ...

In order to be admitted to function as a Bishop within the Church, Bishop Williamson must also distance himself in an absolutely unequivocal and public way from his positions regarding the Shoah ..."
Nota bene, it is not demanded that Bishop Williamson absolutely and unequivocally publicly distance himself from his doubts regarding relativistic Novus Ordo teaching on religious liberty, collegiality, ecuмenism. No, these "outstanding questions" are open to "examination." No such questions or examination can be countenanced in the absolutist realm of "The h0Ɩ0cαųst," however. Here we see the resurrection of the old ipse dixit and anathema that are otherwise entirely unheard of from Catholic prelates for nearly 100 years.

This is remarkable, is it not? In light of this, perhaps readers may understand where Rabbi Michael Berenbaum is coming from when he says, “As I observe young people in relativistic societies seeking an absolute for morals and values, they now can view the h0Ɩ0cαųst as the transcendental move away from the relativistic, and up into the absolute ..." How opportune for Rabbi Berenbaum and "The h0Ɩ0cαųst" that the authorities of the Catholic Church hold "The h0Ɩ0cαųst" to be absolute while Church teachings are ever increasingly relativised away.

Bishop Fellay certainly knows how to go with the relativist/absolutist flow of the Noahide Novus Ordo. Soon after the February 2009 statement from the Pope's Secretary of State was issued, Bp. Fellay was interviewed in Der Speigel saying that he would cast Bp. Williamson out of the SSPX if he "denied" "The h0Ɩ0cαųst" again:

SPIEGEL: So why don't you exclude Williamson from the society?

Fellay: That will happen if he denies the h0Ɩ0cαųst again.

Bp. Fellay was just blending in with Pope Benedict who a month earlier had admonished Catholics not to "forget or deny" "The h0Ɩ0cαųst," and Archbishop Reinhard Marx who proclaimed, “Every denial of the h0Ɩ0cαųst must be punished harshly,” Cardinal Vingt-Trois who exclaimed, "Being a Catholic is radically incompatible with denying the h0Ɩ0cαųst," Cardinal Kasper announcing, "No h0Ɩ0cαųst denial can be allowed or permitted, It's absolutely clear that a h0Ɩ0cαųst denier can't have a room, a space in the Catholic Church."

There may be space between the SSPX Superior and the Novus Ordo on religious liberty and a number of other matters, but where "The h0Ɩ0cαųst" is concerned, which Rabbi Ignaz Maybaum said "replaced Golgotha" and Pope John Paul II said was "The Golgotha of the modern world,", Bp. Fellay and the Novus Ordo sing in perfect unison.

It seems to me a case of swallowing a very large camel while straining out gnats.