FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Are the Pope and the SSPX Being Reasonable to One Another?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
I say yes, if they accept each others demands with the qualifications below. What say you?

The Pope:

1. Recognition of the “licitness” of the new liturgy.

I think this is beyond debate. The Pope has the authority to change the liturgy in everything but its substance. The substance is in tact. Case closed. With the freedom demanded below, they can address the the panopoly of problems with the New Mass, while conceding this point of papal authority. It really is a point of papal authority, and not one of admitting the New Mass is great or not.

2. Recognition of the uninterrupted continuity between Vatican II and all former councils and doctrinal statements of the Church.

I too think that this should be conceded with the context of the freedom given below. This too is a point of authority, and a proper recognition of Vatican II as valid Council. To concede these points does not mean that closes the way to critique Vatican II, or to suggest that some teachings were worded badly, need to be reworded or clarified further, and such like.

As you can see, the Pope wants papal authority and continuity to be honored. To posit rupture beyond reconciliation in the actual documents, instead of misunderstandings or faulty implementation, which the SSPX currently seems willing to do, would not be accepted by the Pope. I think this is a point they should concede, and start us on the path to find continuity, facing the reality that Vatican II is here to stay.

The SSPX:

1. Freedom to expose the errors of Vatican II.

I think this should be conceded, if the SSPX agrees to stop calling every problem an error, but rather takes the more humble position that some thing are liable to ambiguous interpretation, worded badly, requiring clarification, etc. But there should be freedom for them to explore what could be erroneous, and whether the Council was open in some documents to stating error, because of its unique declaration not invoking infallability.

2. Allowed to only use the liturgical books of 1962.

I think this will be granted without question, if they concede the Pope's first point. In this way their freedom is not seen as antagonistic to the Church, but rather a further boon to the Faithful.

3. A bishop in the Fraternity always from within its own ranks.

I too think this will be granted without question, if they concede the Pope's points. I think they will be wary if they don't, because the Bishop then could be a new point of division, and we'd be back at square one. I think everyone wants a decision which they won't have to revisit every ten or twenty years.

[The point concerning freedom from the other bishops I think has already been granted through the structure proposed.]

Here, I think the SSPX has a strong case to maintain traditions and also to expose the last fifty years to scrutiny. I think they're blanket rejection of recent teaching should be loosened, so a position of critique and exploration. Their view of some of the Vatican II's teaching are not always accurate, and they should be reponsive to their critiques.

Lastly, this cannot be view as a one-sided compromise. The SSPX would remain fully in tact with a slight lessening of their worst rhetoric. The Pope would give the SSPX a wide field in which to operate and fulfill its mission. Any objective outsides, who isn't a complete partisan, can see that it would be a gravy deal. The "boon" is the triumph of traditionalism in the view of the Church. It would be an immediate charge to the faithful, and probably greatly expand the demand for traditional Masses. This would have a "trickle up" effect. This position far outweighs in benefit the "outside counterweight" position advocated by some, which I think is a spent force. With the elimination of the indult, I think the previous paradigm has lost its efficacy. The previous model of two counterweights, which both have little influence on the rest of the Church is gone. (Think even of the board here, EF vs. SSPX.) The new model is more diffuse, melding more with the general tenor of the Church, and needs to be brought into harmony with it to spread its benefits also. It then would unify the traditional force to be brought to bear on the New Mass. The sheer idea that SSPX Masses would be legitimate is a huge boon in the fight against the disobedient bishops. Please pray!
What of their property? Will they receive the right to operate anywhere without diocesan approval?
I don't know. I got the info from below. I imagine they'd be treated like any other similar group.

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/09...erger.html
(09-20-2012, 03:06 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]As you can see, the Pope wants papal authority and continuity to be honored. To posit rupture beyond reconciliation in the actual documents, instead of misunderstandings or faulty implementation, which the SSPX currently seems willing to do, would not be accepted by the Pope.

There is rupture and the Pope's failure to see the rupture doesn't change the actual contradictions in the Vatican II documents. Pope Benedict is 85. He's not going to be around in the next couple of years. The SSPX and most of us here, are going to outlive him.


(09-20-2012, 03:06 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]I think this is a point they should concede, and start us on the path to find continuity, facing the reality that Vatican II is here to stay.

You have no idea that Vatican II is here to stay. What's going to happen 20 or 40 years from now? There is nothing stopping a future Pope from repealing Vatican II. Vatican II can be repealed by a future Pope or Council.
(09-20-2012, 03:41 PM)SaintRafael Wrote: [ -> ]You have no idea that Vatican II is here to stay. What's going to happen 20 or 40 years from now? There is nothing stopping a future Pope from repealing Vatican II. Vatican II can be repealed by a future Pope or Council.

Such a thing would be more novel than a Pope praying with non-Catholics in Assisi.
I think papal actions in the last few years have shown Pope Benedict XVI to be working to actively destroy traditionalism. 
If that is the "deal" the SSPX should sign it in permanent ink. Rome is not going to come to the SSPX position as they are many, and as Fr. Cekada has documented waffled over the years, from a protest to nearly sede. One can see the different factions since these talks and the SSPX is not unified in their position. The more militant want Rome to surrender to their ever escalating position which will never happen. The facts that if they'd stop looking hor heresy under every rock, and work on the specific problems in a specific document they'd have it fixed by 2100, at this rate never.

tim
Sorry Script, but several of your propositions are just wild assertions, for a start.
The reasonable thing to do is to squash the NO and purge the Church of pedophiles and gays.  I have a hunch that would do wonders to restoring her glory. 

So no.
(09-20-2012, 03:06 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]I say yes, if they accept each others demands with the qualifications below. What say you?

The Pope:

1. Recognition of the “licitness” of the new liturgy.

I think this is beyond debate. The Pope has the authority to change the liturgy in everything but its substance. The substance is in tact. Case closed. With the freedom demanded below, they can address the the panopoly of problems with the New Mass, while conceding this point of papal authority. It really is a point of papal authority, and not one of admitting the New Mass is great or not.

Why is this beyond debate and case closed? Is it not contrary to salus animarum, suprema lex to purge the Mass and Sacramental rites of what is most Catholic? As another thread pointed out recently, if it is only a change of rubrics and ceremonies, Paul VI said explicitly that it is not a matter of infallibility - thus, you either have to admit that, or admit that the problems are deeper than that.

2. Recognition of the uninterrupted continuity between Vatican II and all former councils and doctrinal statements of the Church.

I too think that this should be conceded with the context of the freedom given below. This too is a point of authority, and a proper recognition of Vatican II as valid Council. To concede these points does not mean that closes the way to critique Vatican II, or to suggest that some teachings were worded badly, need to be reworded or clarified further, and such like.

As you can see, the Pope wants papal authority and continuity to be honored. To posit rupture beyond reconciliation in the actual documents, instead of misunderstandings or faulty implementation, which the SSPX currently seems willing to do, would not be accepted by the Pope. I think this is a point they should concede, and start us on the path to find continuity, facing the reality that Vatican II is here to stay.

From the SSPX viewpoint, VII is inherently flawed and certain passages are, at their very best, scandalous and should be excised. Why give up and just keel over with the "here to stay" business if this is the case?

The SSPX:

1. Freedom to expose the errors of Vatican II.

I think this should be conceded, if the SSPX agrees to stop calling every problem an error, but rather takes the more humble position that some thing are liable to ambiguous interpretation, worded badly, requiring clarification, etc. But there should be freedom for them to explore what could be erroneous, and whether the Council was open in some documents to stating error, because of its unique declaration not invoking infallability.

If there are real issues, then it is illegeitimate to suggest the SSPX adopt a more "humble" position. Either they have legitimate points, or they do not. Either there are errors, or things are simply worded ambiguously. Those two options are not identical. If there are errors, it is not prideful to point them out. If there are not, it is not necessarily pride, just them being wrong. To make it about pride unfairly obscures the real issues.

2. Allowed to only use the liturgical books of 1962.

I think this will be granted without question, if they concede the Pope's first point. In this way their freedom is not seen as antagonistic to the Church, but rather a further boon to the Faithful.

3. A bishop in the Fraternity always from within its own ranks.

I too think this will be granted without question, if they concede the Pope's points. I think they will be wary if they don't, because the Bishop then could be a new point of division, and we'd be back at square one. I think everyone wants a decision which they won't have to revisit every ten or twenty years.

[The point concerning freedom from the other bishops I think has already been granted through the structure proposed.]

Here, I think the SSPX has a strong case to maintain traditions and also to expose the last fifty years to scrutiny. I think they're blanket rejection of recent teaching should be loosened, so a position of critique and exploration. Their view of some of the Vatican II's teaching are not always accurate, and they should be reponsive to their critiques.

Lastly, this cannot be view as a one-sided compromise. The SSPX would remain fully in tact with a slight lessening of their worst rhetoric. The Pope would give the SSPX a wide field in which to operate and fulfill its mission. Any objective outsides, who isn't a complete partisan, can see that it would be a gravy deal. The "boon" is the triumph of traditionalism in the view of the Church. It would be an immediate charge to the faithful, and probably greatly expand the demand for traditional Masses. This would have a "trickle up" effect. This position far outweighs in benefit the "outside counterweight" position advocated by some, which I think is a spent force. With the elimination of the indult, I think the previous paradigm has lost its efficacy. The previous model of two counterweights, which both have little influence on the rest of the Church is gone. (Think even of the board here, EF vs. SSPX.) The new model is more diffuse, melding more with the general tenor of the Church, and needs to be brought into harmony with it to spread its benefits also. It then would unify the traditional force to be brought to bear on the New Mass. The sheer idea that SSPX Masses would be legitimate is a huge boon in the fight against the disobedient bishops. Please pray!
Pages: 1 2