Posted on 09/02/2005 6:51:01 PM PDT by jec1ny
Dear B Knotts,
Well, before this thread, I was blissfully unaware of the existence of Mr. Palma.
However, in reading his latest entry, I don't find it offensive. In fact, I agree with him. In fact, I think it's sorta funny, in a sad sort of way, that the SSPX appears to want:
1. The Vatican to stop referring to the "excommunications," but
2. To also lift the excommunications AS A PRECONDITION FOR TALKS.
LOL! That's positively Orwellian!
"What excommunications?? There are no excommunications!! Don't even MENTION the word EXCOMMUNICATION!!
"Except, of course, to the lift the excommunications."
ROTFLMAO!!
Look, I want reconciliation as much as anyone.
But, in truth, not by fudging the truth.
However, as you point out, Mr. Palma hardly qualifies as one of us evil conservative neo-Catholics. In reading other items on Mr. Palma's blog, it appears that he comes to the defense of Roger Cardinal Mahoney as a truly orthodox bishop.
* gag *
sitetest
Which necessitated they quitting being doctrinal Nestorians, the acceptance of Chalcedon, and a slight revision of their Liturgy to purify it from any heretical ambiguity. We now refer to these "Churches of the East"--a term coined to differentiate them from the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Rite Churches--as fully Catholic.
Nothing less should be required from the Lefebvrites.
How many of the people who vehemently attack these efforts at reconciliation even fully accept Humanae Vitae? I used to get frustrated with SSPXers, but lately some of the most unreasonable rants I've seen are from so-called orthodox Catholics (although Rocco seems to be more of a "liberal" Catholic).
I fully embrace Humanae Vitae. Although in our marriage my wife and I have shunned artificial contraceptives, I freely confess that it took a while for us to understand the teaching of this Encyclical, as well as a couple of friends and acquaintances with lots of patience. Not until we understood all the underpinnings did we dare to explain it to everyone else who cared to listen, that filial obedience to the teachings of this Encyclical guarantee the proper respect of the human body as befitting the Temple of the Holy Spirit.
I give a lot of credit to the late Servant of God Pope John Paul the Great for clarifying a lot of questions on this issue. Perhaps, if he had ghostwritten this Encyclical, things may have turnout differently. But that's neither here nor there. As far as I'm concerned, Humanae Vitae's teaching is de fide. I also support reconciliation between the SSPX and the Holy See. Like I've said elsewhere:
I am of the opinion that healing the schism will give the SSPX the credibility necessary to pursue what it sees as its mission for the Church. The SSPX may join all the other ecclesial movements, prelatures, and secular institutes, etc., in their pursuit of their proper charism and renewal mission. The SSPX may become a powerful force in the Church by helping restore traditional Catholic piety and culture in parishes throughout the world. Filial and humble obedience to the Vicar of Christ will help the SSPX to become influential in matters running from church architecture to music, and of restoring the place of both liturgies in the life of Catholic Christians.Thank you for posting Cardinal Ratzinger's remarks to the Bishops of Chile. I love this quote found right at the beginning:If only it were that easy.
Nevertheless, SSPX's sin of schism needs to be atoned for and reparated. They will do this in part by stopping their wholesale attacks against the Novus Ordo and by focusing themselves on preserving the Old Rite and by improving the New Rite without seeking to undermine or destroy it. The SSPX also should accept the full binding dogmatic authority of the Second Vatican Council and renounce all attempts to nuance, downgrade, subordinate, and/or diminish its Constitutions and Declarations through sophism and subterfuge. What is required of the SSPX is simple: that they embrace and love the Church NOW, and stop making an idol of an ideal Church of the past that frankly, never was.
And the fact that when the chips were down Lefebvre denounced an agreement that had already been signed, shows that the Holy See, while it made truly generous concessions, did not grant him that complete license which he desired. Lefebvre has seen that, in the fundamental part of the agreement, he was being held to accept Vatican II and the affirmations of the post-conciliar Magisterium, according to the proper authority of each document.Exactly."There is a glaring contradiction in the fact that it is just the people who have let no occasion slip to allow the world to know of their disobedience to the Pope, and to the magisterial declarations of the last 20 years, who think they have the right to judge that this attitude is too mild and who wish that an absolute obedience to Vatican II had been insisted upon. In a similar way they would claim that the Vatican has conceded a right to dissent to Lefebvre which has been obstinately denied to the promoters of a progressive tendency. In reality, the only point which is affirmed in the agreement, following Lumen Gentium 25, is the plain fact that not all documents of the Council have the same authority. For the rest, it was explicitly laid down in the text that was signed that public polemics must be avoided, and that an attitude is required of positive respect for official decisions and declarations...
In Christ,
-Theo
Probably not, but stranger things HAVE happened.
Speaking of Orwellian... ;^l
Dear TradicalRC,
"'conservative neo-Catholics'
"Speaking of Orwellian... ;^l"
Hey, you'll get no argument from me. Take it up with the so-called "traditionalists" who coined and use the term perjoratively.
sitetest
The SSPX, in its usual arrogance, seems to feel it is the Catholic Church which will have to get its house in order and reconcile itself back to the SSPX.
Actually the SSPX in it's common sense (not arrogance) is waiting for the Vatican Curia and the rest of the Church to get over the "fad" of ecumenism and return to teaching the Catholic Faith. Looking at the destruction brought on by the Council and the Council inspired reforms, it is undeniable. The Pope himself described the Church as a ship that is sinking. It's always funny how neo-Catholics in their usual arrogance decide to ignore the Pope when they don't like what he says.
Objectively speaking, the SSPX is a disobedient sect who has left the Church.
I'd love for you to prove how "objective" that is. Disobedience can't be the criteria because that would put 99% of the bishops and the Catholic population outside the Church. And since bishop Fellay is asking the Pope to clarify matters with his Apostolic Authority in infallible pronouncements, it can't be schism because he can't appeal to that which he would deny if he were a schismatic.
The objective reality is the Catholic Church is in a crisis on a scale never seen before. Modernists have gained control of the levers of power. Popes and bishops are no longer willing to defend the Church against them. Many priests are heretics and the lay faithful are faithful to anything but real Catholic doctrine. And by that I'm referring to those who engage in the fantasy that the Pope in Rome is always right.
The SSPX are the only ones sounding the alarm and insisting that the Church return to her true mission the salvation of souls in the Catholic Church.
"What excommunications?? There are no excommunications!! Don't even MENTION the word EXCOMMUNICATION!! "Except, of course, to the lift the excommunications." ROTFLMAO!!
You should get up off the floor and put your posterior back on. It's always embarassing to see someone laughing over a an irony that they've mistakenly assumed. The SSPX want the declaration of the excommunications nullified, not lifted. They want (as they should) B16 to declare that JPII was wrong in his assessment. Supposedly "lifting" the excommunications would be "fudging the truth" and no one wants that.
I'm constantly amazed at how neo-Catholics can't get the facts right concerning the SSPX. It's generally because they believe something about Rome that has nothing to do with the Catholic Faith and more with the Protestant concept of the papacy. (with the exception that they like it) That usually leads them to dangerous assumptions about the honesty and clarity of things coming out of Rome.
Dear Gerald.P,
"The SSPX want the declaration of the excommunications nullified, not lifted."
Regrettably, it is this spirit of arrogance and pride that may never be overcome, and may stand between the SSPX and the Catholic Faith forever.
This evil neo-Catholic Novus Ordoite will pray that it won't turn out that way.
sitetest
Would we treat the Eastern Orthodox this way? I think Abp. Lefebvre was wrong to consecrate the four bishops. And I think SSPX is kidding themselves if they think they are already in a regular situation with respect to Rome. But, they are not heretics, and we have people who are much farther out theologically who are supposedly in union with Rome (Sr. Chittester, Bp. Gumbleton, Fr. McBrien).
Within the SSPX there are certainly people with problematic attitudes (e.g., Bp. Williamson). But for the most part, they are the kind of people we need fully within the Church, to balance out AmChurchism and its European equivalent.
BTW, I assist at the Missa Normativa, and have only been to the Traditional Latin Mass a handful of times. I nevertheless wish to see the right for any Latin Rite priest to offer the TLM affirmed, regardless of what happens with SSPX.
Craddle Orthodox Christians are not guilty of formal schism. They cannot be acused of breaking the unity of the Church.
Hence, the annoyance of many of us before the SSPX's chutzpah.
-Theo
An assessment completed by Cardinal Ratzinger, who is now B16.
Isn't this a bit disingenuous?
-Theo
I'm no SSPXer, but I really think Catholics ought to try to receive them back into the Church in at least the same charitable tone we present to the Orthodox.
I am praying for unity and reconciliation.
Like I said above, so am I. :-)
-Theo
"I took this scenario as a future hypothetical, since 'dies' implied to me that he is still alive at present:"
I wrote it that way because I was thinking from Lefebvre's point of view when he declined the deal.
Gotcha. I read it all again and see it was a past hypothetical.
Maybe we could work this Mahony idea into a pitch to that guy who makes the Night Of The Living Dead movies. You can't get rid of him.
"The SSPX also should accept the full binding dogmatic authority of the Second Vatican Council"
Before he was kicked off FR through the machinations of a certain person who was pretending to be something he was not, an SSPX defender here often asserted that VatII was a "pastoral" council and not a "dogmatic" council.
"Maybe we could work this Mahony idea into a pitch to that guy who makes the Night Of The Living Dead movies. "
Hollyweird? They'd make Mahoney into the greatest hero since Joan of Arc.
And probably write a few topless hip-hop masses into the script as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.