Vatican Offers SSPX Ordinariate
#91
From Father Z:

Quote:I am a little more sanguine about these talks than Mr. Allen seems to be.

Surely the time for these talks and then some concrete action on both sides is now, while Benedict XVI is Pope.

From the CDF’s side, as I have argued before, if the followers of Fr. Feeney, with their rigid interpretation of “no salvation outside the Church” can be reconciled without abjuring their positions – that is a very hard doctrine to grasp and interpret, after all, true as we affirm it to be – then why cannot the SSPXers be reconciled when they have problems with some things from the Second Vatican Council which are also points that are very hard to interpret?  Points which in the Council’s own documents are subject to differing interpretations?  When we are faced with doctrines that are very difficult to grasp, a certain measure of freedom should be allowed.

If we can have greater unity with former Anglicans, who can maintain many of their cherished traditions but in unity with the Roman Pontiff, if we can have an Ordinariate for them through Anglicanorum coetibus, then why can we not have some structure for the SSPX, who are closer to us in so many more respects?

For one thing, the Anglicans were willing to submit to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and were willing to give up things and make sacrifices for the sake of unity.  In the balance, they gained far more than they gave up.

The more difficult problem than the doctrinal discussion – and they are not easy – is probably just that some in the SSPX are now so comfortable or set in their positions that they may not be able to change.

We are now seeing a young set of SSPXers coming up who have never in their own lives known unity with Rome.  They have a mindset which they defend and they may not be able to leave it aside and make the hard choice for manifest unity with the Roman Pontiff and, what is more, obedience to his authority.

In both Pope Benedict and in Bp. Fellay we see men who are trying to bring the two sides together.  I pray that they succeed.  There will be resistance from some close to the process on both sides.  I suspect that even if they were to come to an accord, there would be a group that split off from the SSPX and there would be savage criticism and resistance within the ranks of those who are in clearer formal unity.

A wise mentor whose memory and lessons I hold dear once told me that at a certain point we must stop arguing and try to open hearts.

Perhaps you will include this petition in your prayers, that those who have closed hearts and minds on both sides will make the choice for reconciliation so that this wound in the Church’s unity can be healed and that men with a valid contribution to make to the life of the Church can finally be brought home and celebrated. 

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/08/john-alle...r-z-rants/
Reply
#92
(08-25-2011, 02:49 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: From Father Z:
I love the comments on that post. The trads showed up united questioning John Allen comparing SSPX with Chicoms as well as this all of a sudden downplaying of the event. I highly doubt something minor is happening on an important feast day such as exhaltation of the Holy Cross. They could have met at anytime.
Reply
#93
(08-24-2011, 11:06 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
(08-24-2011, 08:57 PM)City Smurf Wrote:
(08-24-2011, 08:47 PM)JMartyr Wrote: Oh, but the SSPX and the Orthodox are?

In that their ministry within Christ's Church is equally the same.. namely non-existent.

Huh?  According to the Catholic Church (especially Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI), the Eastern Orthodox are true particular Churches of the Church of Christ, they build up the Church of God whenever they celebrate the Holy Eucharist, they are not to be converted as though their salvation depended upon it, and Pope John Paul II declared himself to be in communion with schismatic patriarchs.  The Catholic Church supports their [Eastern Orthodox] mission in their countries, and gives them the relics of saints to help build up the Bride of Christ.

You should not be so dismissive of the "Eastern Lung of the Church."  Rolling eyes

How is it possible for the EO Churches to be "true particular Churches of the Church of Christ" ?

1. They are not mad keen on us (for reasons of very various worth)
2.  They & the CC do not  agree in dogma, or in  the canon of the Bible or as to which persons are Saints. 
3.  They reject the dogmatic teaching of Vatican I regarding the Primacy of Peter
4.  They do not regard the CC as  "a true particular [Church] of the Church of Christ"
5. They are sure that EOdoxy is the One Truth Faith as we are
6. There has been no change in EO doctrine or practice since before even 1964, when the Patriarch Athenagoras & Paul VI lifted their predecessors' excommunications. So what has changed, that the CC can regard EO Christians as members of "true particular Churches of the Church of Christ", when Pius XI, Leo XIII, & and earlier Popes did not ?   

With all possible respect for the EOdox  - IOW, a very great deal - it is incoherent & nonsensical, if one wishes not to cast off the traditional Faith of the CC, to say of them what  John Paul II said. The implications for Catholic dogma - not just doctrine, but dogma: truth revealed by God Himself that is part of the Apostolic Deposit of Faith - do not allow him to say that, nor the present Holy Father to agree with him. 

One has to wonder whether such notions of the Church as those implied by these items makes union with Rome worthwhile or even morally good. What is the good in being in communion with a Petrine See that can say such things, and does not explain how one gets from condemnation of the EOs to the acceptance of them  sad ?
Reply
#94
Leo Rugiens,
Your argument is not with me but with the Second Vatican Council (Unitatis Redintegratio), with Pope John Paul II (Ut Unum Sint) and once-Cardinal Ratzinger (Church Understood as Communion, Dominus Iesus), who is now Pope Benedict XVI (CDF, 29 June 2007).

God bless.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)