SSPX leader calls Jewish people ‘enemies of the Church’
#11
Quote from: Vox
There's that sloppy language again:  "accept Vatican II." That says and means nothing. Accept what about Vatican II? These things need to be laid out very clearly and succinctly. Sloppy talk like that gets us nowhere.

Well, it lacks precision but I think if you consider the state of most Catholic churches, "communities" and dioceses, I think it's pretty obvious that "accepting" VII means implementing it's practices and errors.  What's the difference between the society and your average diocese, besides liturgy?  The dioceses are the ones that hold interreligious prayer services, advertise rallies for religious freedom, and reinforce the errors of VII collegiality via the USCCB.  That is what changed in Catholic dioceses after the council, and that is what didn't change in the society.

The NO program "officially" considers the TLM and NO to be on the same plain, so theoretically the mass is not the issue for them when dealing with the society.  It's doctrine.
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#12
Bishop Bernard Fellay, the society’s superior general, said those most opposed to Rome granting canonical recognition to the SSPX have been “the enemies of the Church: the Jews, the Masons, the modernists”.

My Priest says this just about every Sunday!
Reply
#13
(01-05-2013, 12:57 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(01-04-2013, 11:59 PM)MRose Wrote: Evil is a privation. It is the lack of good where good ought to be. Thus, it is quite right to call the Novus Ordo "evil." The fact that people have emotional reactions to the word and/or do not understand it is reprehensible, but evil it is nonetheless.

I think this oversimplifies the issue. As St. Thomas says:
ST I q48 a4 Wrote:Evil cannot wholly consume good. To prove this we must consider that good is threefold. One kind of good is wholly destroyed by evil, and this is the good opposed to evil, as light is wholly destroyed by darkness, and sight by blindness. Another kind of good is neither wholly destroyed nor diminished by evil, and that is the good which is the subject of evil; for by darkness the substance of the air is not injured. And there is also a kind of good which is diminished by evil, but is not wholly taken away; and this good is the aptitude of a subject to some actuality.

A blanket condemnation of the NO as "evil" lacks precision. If the NO is deficient in some respect, and I believe that it is, then it would not be incorrect to say that there are evils in the NO where particular goods are lacking, but simply condemning the NO as evil without qualification seems to be inaccurate, especially if one believes it to be a valid liturgy. It would be like calling a man evil because he occasionally lacks imprudence. Obviously, a lack of prudence is a privation of good, but this does not mean that the man is an evil monster who cannot be distinguished from Hitler or Stalin. I am also not sure that simply calling something "evil" without qualification is likely to lead to fruitful arguments or convince anyone who does not already agree. But if one does want to say that the NO is evil while maintaining that this is an objective and disinterested statement, I think one would at least need to be a little more precise.

I think there might also be a tendency here to confuse moral evil with a broader definition of evil. For example, St. Thomas uses the example of blindness above, which is an evil but not a moral evil. Obviously, we would never say that a blind man is evil because he is blind. Presumably, the evils that are to be found in the NO are evil not in the moral sense, but in the broader sense that includes things like blindness and illness. If this is so, then it would seem to be incorrect to refer to the NO as evil on account of the deficiencies to which it is subject.

Very insightful post.
Reply
#14
Regarding the talks between Rome and the SSPX, I can see why Bp. Fellay might be frustrated by mixed messages, but I think that Rome has been clear about at least two things: The SSPX cannot refer to the Council as having "errors," and the New Mass must be accepted. I recall that the SSPX was allowed to make some adjustments to the Preamble without changing its content, but I think that they changed the content rather substantially, which may have caused problems.

I can't imagine that any Pope would allow a group to proclaim, with authority, that a council of the Church contains errors, or that a Mass is evil. Perhaps a future Pope will allow them this liberty, but I doubt it. It's unlikely that the SSPX will ever reconcile.
Reply
#15
(01-04-2013, 11:59 PM)MRose Wrote: Evil is a privation. It is the lack of good where good ought to be. Thus, it is quite right to call the Novus Ordo "evil." The fact that people have emotional reactions to the word and/or do not understand it is reprehensible, but evil it is nonetheless.


And how can Mass be 'evil' when Christ is made present on the altar?  I understand the definition of evil and the Novus Ordo is a valid means of confecting the Eucharist: therefore Dominus Est.

There may be abuses and all the rest but that does not make the Mass evil or invalid.  Simple truth.
Reply
#16
Bishop Fellay is evil. Or isn't he?
Reply
#17
If in fact it is as Bishop Fellay has said, they will not accept the council, and not mentioning specifics, meaning the entire council, and that the NO Mass is Evil, not defining what is evil, meaning the entire Mass, then the SSPX is prepared to never return. There is no nuance there, the SSPX is right and Rome is wrong.

tim
Reply
#18
It seems to me that the Vatican has chosen the Jews over Catholics, the SSPX.  I think the biggest problems since VII are mostly three fold.  That some Catholic prelates have said that the Jews may have justification without Jesus Christ which goes against what St. John said in chapter six of his Gospel.  And that most Protestant denominations are part of the Catholic Church whether they realize it or not, and even if they don't recognize it themselves and are still anti-Catholic.  Considering that Protestant denominations do not receive the Holy Eucharist this also goes against what St. John said in chapter six of his Gospel.  And then there's Assisi, which also goes against what St. John said in chapter six of his Gospel, as well as the first Commandment.  Only God knows the heart of man.  I think priests, bishops, cardinals and even popes are over stepping their authority in all three of the above.  I like what Nicolaus said, that even enemies can eventually become Saints like St. Paul, but the Church needs to stand fast to it's commission, to take God's Word to all peoples and nations.  I think it's going too far to say that the Novus Ordo is evil though.
Reply
#19

"Bishop Fellay said: “Even in the Council there are some things we accept,” as well as reject, however, the group wishes to be free to say, “there are errors in the Council” and that “the new Mass is evil”."

The Holy Sacrifice of Christ is evil then.

It seems the SSPX is the Church and the rest of the "church" is not.

Reply
#20
According to Bishop Fellay, retired Colombian Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, then president of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, the office responsible for relations with traditionalist Catholics, had told him in March 2009 that the society would be formally recognised.

When the bishop asked how that could be possible when recognition hinged on accepting the teachings of Vatican II, he said the cardinal replied that such a requirement was only “political” and “administrative” and that, “by the way, that is not what the Pope thinks”.

Bishop Fellay said he continued to get similar messages from other Vatican officials, even as the formal talks continued. The verbal and written messages were very credible, he said, because they came from officials who saw the Pope “every day or every two days.”

He said he wouldn’t give names, but he did claim “the secretary of the Pope himself” was among those who told him not to worry too much about hardline Vatican positions.

Even if the doctrinal congregation ruled against the society, he claimed the secretary told him, the Pope “will overrule it in favour of the society”.


If true, there is nothing to worry about for the SSPX.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)