Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: SSPX and Rome Nov. 2014  (Read 26044 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SSPX and Rome Nov. 2014
« on: November 24, 2014, 07:52:27 AM »
SSPX and Rome Nov. 2014

Lefebvrians: “Rome doesn’t plan on imposing a capitulation”
In an interview with authoritative French weekly magazine Famille Chrétienne, the Secretary of Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, Guido Pozzo, discussed the state of relations between Rome and the Society of St. Pius X following Mgr. Fellay’s recent meeting with the Prefect of the Doctrine for the Faith. From the interview, it would seem that the Holy See does not intend to put any pressure on Mgr. Lefebvre’s followers but would like an agreement to be reached, although the timeframe for this is uncertain. What we are given to understand here, is that Rome intends to show greater flexibility on any aspect that does not regard doctrine.
 
In 2009 Benedict XVI decided to revoke the  excommunication of Lefebvrian bishops who had been illicitly ordained by Mgr. Lefebvre in 1988. This was a first and essential step toward the resumption of a constructive dialogue. Just a first step, however, because there were still some big doctrinal questions which needed to be addressed. The Ecclesia Dei Commission which has close links with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is the main instrument in this dialogue process.
 
Perhaps the most interesting part of the interview is that which addressed the sticking points in said dialogue. Mgr. Pozzo underlined that “any reservations or positions the Society of St. Pius X may have regarding aspects which are not related to faith but to pastoral questions or the prudential teaching of the Magisterium do not necessarily need to withdrawn or relinquished.” Here Rome seems to be showing an attempt to alter positions expressed in the past: According to Mgr. Pozzo, the fraternity’s reservations are linked to “aspects of pastoral care or the prudential teaching of the Magisterium.” The monsignor’s statement suggests that since these criticisms and reservations are no longer labelled as “doctrinal” the Lefebvrians could legitimately continue to express them.
 
This approach is expressed more clearly in the following part of the interview:  “The Holy See does not wish to impose a capitulation on the SSPX. On the contrary, it invites the fraternity to stand beside it within the same framework of doctrinal principles that is necessary in guaranteeing the same adhesion to the faith and Catholic doctrine on the Magisterium and the Tradition. At the same time, there is room for further reflection on the reservations the fraternity has expressed regarding certain aspects and the wording of the Second Vatican Council docuмents as well as some reforms that followed but which do not refer to subjects which are dogmatically or doctrinally indisputable.”
 
Finally, one other very important clarification was made: “There is no doubt that the teachings of the Second Vatican Council vary a great deal in terms of how authoritative and binding they are depending on the text. So, for example, the Lumen Gentium Constitution on the Church and the Dei Verbum on the Divine Revelation are doctrinal declarations even though no dogmatic definition was given to them”, whereas the declarations on religious freedom, non-Christian religions and the decree on ecuмenism “are authoritative and binding to a different and lesser degree.”
 
It is unclear how long this process is going to take: “I don’t think it is possible to say yet when this process will conclude,” Mgr. Pozzo said. Both sides are committed to taking things step by step. “There will be no unexpected shortcuts; the clearly stated aim is to promote unity through the generosity of the universal Church led by the successor of Peter.”   http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/le...

SSPX and Rome Nov. 2014
« Reply #1 on: November 24, 2014, 07:56:49 AM »
Quote from: quote
the same adhesion to the faith and Catholic doctrine on the Magisterium and the Tradition. At the same time, there is room for further reflection on the reservations the fraternity has expressed regarding certain aspects and the wording of the Second Vatican Council docuмents as well as some reforms that followed but which do not refer to subjects which are dogmatically or doctrinally indisputable.
 
Finally, one other very important clarification was made: “There is no doubt that the teachings of the Second Vatican Council vary a great deal in terms of how authoritative and binding they are depending on the text. So, for example, the Lumen Gentium Constitution on the Church and the Dei Verbum on the Divine Revelation are doctrinal declarations even though no dogmatic definition was given to them”, whereas the declarations on religious freedom, non-Christian religions and the decree on ecuмenism “are authoritative and binding to a different and lesser degree.”
 



If the SSPX accepts the Hermeneutic of continuity then I will no longer support the priests who remain with them.  I know that the consciences of some priests, especially the older ones will not allow this sort of thinking, they will be working contrary to their own consciences. I would probably have to give them a red-light, and I think that this will be what others, across the board will say as well.


SSPX and Rome Nov. 2014
« Reply #2 on: November 24, 2014, 08:00:48 AM »
Finally, one other very important clarification was made: “There is no doubt that the teachings of the Second Vatican Council vary a great deal in terms of how authoritative and binding they are depending on the text. So, for example, the Lumen Gentium Constitution on the Church and the Dei Verbum on the Divine Revelation are doctrinal declarations even though no dogmatic definition was given to them”, whereas the declarations on religious freedom, non-Christian religions and the decree on ecuмenism “are authoritative and binding to a different and lesser degree.”


So, regardless, all are authoritative and binding, no?

SSPX and Rome Nov. 2014
« Reply #3 on: November 24, 2014, 09:36:33 AM »
Quote from: 2Vermont
Finally, one other very important clarification was made: “There is no doubt that the teachings of the Second Vatican Council vary a great deal in terms of how authoritative and binding they are depending on the text. So, for example, the Lumen Gentium Constitution on the Church and the Dei Verbum on the Divine Revelation are doctrinal declarations even though no dogmatic definition was given to them”, whereas the declarations on religious freedom, non-Christian religions and the decree on ecuмenism “are authoritative and binding to a different and lesser degree.”


So, regardless, all are authoritative and binding, no?

If they are from the Universal Ordinary Magisterium they are indeed authoritative and binding as the UOM is both Infallible and Indefectible.  

The only way the docuмents could have defected from the Catholic Faith would be if Paul VI was indeed an anti-pope.  In which case the "council" docuмents aren't worth the paper they were written on.

SSPX and Rome Nov. 2014
« Reply #4 on: November 24, 2014, 09:44:43 AM »
Quote from: Ferdinand
Quote from: 2Vermont
Finally, one other very important clarification was made: “There is no doubt that the teachings of the Second Vatican Council vary a great deal in terms of how authoritative and binding they are depending on the text. So, for example, the Lumen Gentium Constitution on the Church and the Dei Verbum on the Divine Revelation are doctrinal declarations even though no dogmatic definition was given to them”, whereas the declarations on religious freedom, non-Christian religions and the decree on ecuмenism “are authoritative and binding to a different and lesser degree.”


So, regardless, all are authoritative and binding, no?

If they are from the Universal Ordinary Magisterium they are indeed authoritative and binding as the UOM is both Infallible and Indefectible.  

The only way the docuмents could have defected from the Catholic Faith would be if Paul VI was indeed an anti-pope.  In which case the "council" docuмents aren't worth the paper they were written on.


Yes.  I was asking because I too often hear from SSPX folks that the docuмents are not infallible and therefore can be ignored and Paul VI etal can still be valid popes.  It appears the Novus Ordo church is indeed informing us that these docuмents are infallible and binding.