FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: A Fresh Attack on the SSPX (Western Catholic Reporter, Canada)
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
In noticed this opinion piece by the editor of my so-called 'catholic' newspaper. I do not condone what's written but I thought you'd all like to know nonetheless.

Pressure Groups Cannot Roll Back Teachings of Vatican II

The pope is not only the symbol of unity in the Church, he also has the key responsibility for making unity as visible as possible. Sp Pope Benedict is being faithful to his call in working diligently to restore full unity between the Roman Catholic Church and the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). No one should want full schism.

Nevertheless, Vatican officials are right in being cautious and even wary in making agreements with a group that rejects key elements of the Second Vatican Council. The council was not a four-year Church picnic among the bishops and other fathers who participated. It was an extraordinary and effective exercise of the Church's magisterial authority that was guided by the Holy Spirit and whose documents were promulgated by the rightful successor of Peter.

No pressure group has the authority to ask the Church to roll back or water down the teachings of Vatican II. The SSPX has rejected the council's teachings on religious liberty, ecumenism, interreligious dialogue, the liturgy and the nature of Tradition. Such rejection strikes at the heart of Vatican II teachings.

Moreover, the ongoing anti-Semitic comments by one SSPX bishop stands as a sign of the trajectory of opinion among those who would reject Vatican II's teaching on interreligious dialougue. It would be a scandal of high degree for the Church to be perceived as tacitly making allowance for such comments. Vatican II's declaration that the Church "deplores all hatreds, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism levelled at any time or from any source against the Jews" is an unequivocal statement that cannot be compromised.

The leader of the traditionalist society, Bishop Bernard Fellay, has said that even if the SSPX is reconciled with the Catholic Church, it would continue to denounce "doctrinal difficulties' in the Church. This is not a sign that meaningful reconciliation is on the horizon. From the Catholic point of view, any doctrinal difficulties lie on the other side.

The Vatican, appropriately, has not spoken publicly in detail about the nature of its doctrinal discussions with the SSPX. However, if the society is willing to accept the teachings of Vatican II, it could be appropriate for it to be allowed to use the pre-Vatican II liturgy and to be governed by what is called a personal prelature.

The society's willingness to accept the conciliar teachings seems, at least from the outside, to be most dubious. If that perception is wrong, reconciliation with the SSPX would be a good and desirable step. But if it is true, then the reconciliation would be phony, one which would only serve to endorse the pick-and-choose mentality to Church teaching that has been rightly deplored in recent decades.

Glen Argan, editor.

Like I said before I'm only relaying what was written in my local paper nothing more, so please try not to shoot the messenger.
Quote:Nevertheless, Vatican officials are right in being cautious and even wary in making agreements with a group that rejects key elements of the Second Vatican Council. The council was not a four-year Church picnic among the bishops and other fathers who participated. It was an extraordinary and effective exercise of the Church's magisterial authority that was guided by the Holy Spirit and whose documents were promulgated by the rightful successor of Peter.

No pressure group has the authority to ask the Church to roll back or water down the teachings of Vatican II. The SSPX has rejected the council's teachings on religious liberty, ecumenism, interreligious dialogue, the liturgy and the nature of Tradition. Such rejection strikes at the heart of Vatican II teachings.

Voilá qui est dit.

I thought VII didn't have any new teachings, as conservatives would say. Or that these "teachings" can be "interpreted via the hermeneutic of continuity."

Thank you, Mr. Argan. I have indeed made the right choices.
(quote) Moreover, the ongoing anti-Semitic comments by one SSPX bishop stands as a sign of the trajectory of opinion among those who would reject Vatican II's teaching on interreligious dialougue. (quote)

You should email the editor and ask him if he could provide quotes for the anti-semitic comments he's referring to.

Attacking the SSPX just hides the fact that the NO church is doing nothing to fix their own massive problems, its a smokescreen!!
(07-24-2012, 05:25 PM)salus Wrote: [ -> ]Attacking the SSPX just hides the fact that the NO church is doing nothing to fix their own massive problems, its a smokescreen!!

They don't see it as a problem. We are the one's with the problem. We are the one's who do not want to accept the new liturgy, which was necessary and good. When it comes to religious liberty, ecumenism, and/or "subsistit in," either we are badly "misinterpreting" the documents, to which we have to read long theses on how we are wrong and that the documents can be reconciled, or there indeed was a change and we just need to accept it.
Crusader your denial of Father Feeney strict interpetation of EENS is as modernistic as the NO folks.................................................just joking :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
(07-24-2012, 05:49 PM)salus Wrote: [ -> ]Crusader your denial of Father Feeney strict interpetation of EENS is as modernistic as the NO folks

I'd rather side with what St. Alphonsus, Ott, Tanquerey, Aquinas, and St. Robert Bellarmine say. Not Fr. Feeney S.J.

But, this is for another thread. Ultimately, Feeneyites do not understand BOD/BOB and/or how theology works.
There is nothing "anti-Semitic" about questioning historical data or positing a thesis about historical events. It does not matter what one thinks about the whole situation; there is no way that such, in itself, is by definition anti-Semitic.

Of course, the author likely could care less about that. Someone should ask him whether he thinks, and whether VII teaches, that Jews must convert.
(07-24-2012, 04:22 PM)limey123 Wrote: [ -> ]In noticed this opinion piece by the editor of my so-called 'catholic' newspaper. I do not condone what's written but I thought you'd all like to know nonetheless.

Well, Mr Argan's boss, His Grace the Archbishop is no friend of Tradition, so I'm not surprised. Shortly after SP was issued, I was one of a large group of people that signed a petition under its terms asking for a more generous provision of the TLM than the once a week at St Anthony's with an FSSP priest having to drive up from Calgary to supply. His Grace's response was that he saw no demand for the TLM in the Archdiocese and that there would be no change!
Actually Jovan if you go onto the FSSP of Alberta website you will see that they now offer mass three times a week at St Antony's now. The first mass is on Sunday at 8am, the second is on Friday at 6pm, and the third mass is on Saturday at 9am. I'm not 100% sure but the website seems to indicate that the FSSP have their own residence in Edmonton now, me and my wife have spoken of going to one with daughter in the near future.

Nevertheless I do agree with you that His Grace could do a lot more to make the extraordinary mass more available to the faithful, I am thankful at least that St John's Ukrainian Catholic Church is right down the street so that I can go fulfill my Sunday obligation there whenever I'm able. Obviously its not the same as the extraordinary mass, but still a vast  improvement over the local NO... However one small improvement since the revised NO liturgy changes is that kneeling after recitation of the Sanctus is now mandatory, although parishioners still like to hold hands during the Lords Prayer , and extraordinary male and female communion servers are still the norm  >:(
Pages: 1 2 3