Posted on 12/21/2011 2:15:10 PM PST by NYer
The traditionalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) has delivered its official response to a Vatican offer for reconciliation, but the response is not what the Holy See expected, reports leading Vatican journalist Andrea Tornielli.
Last week the SSPX submitted a response to the “Doctrinal Preamble” that was presented to the traditionalist group in September as the possible basis for a reconciliation with the Holy See. The document allowed for some amendment or clarification, but the Vatican made it clear that the SSPX would be expected to accept the essence of the statement, acknowledging the authority of Vatican II, before the traditionalist group could be regularized.
Bishop Bernard Fellay, the head of the SSPX, had already disclosed that the group would not accept the Doctrinal Preamble as it stands. His public comments seemed to indicate that the SSPX would suggest amendments to the document. (The text of the Doctrinal Preamble has not been made public. Bishop Fellay explained that it will remain confidential until a final decision has been made.)
However, according to Tornielli, the formal response submitted by the SSPX to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is neither an agreement nor a proposal for changes in the document. Tornielli suggests that the SSPX response seems to be a bid to gain some extra time for internal discussions, because Bishop Fellay—who appears to be leaning toward an accord with the Holy See—faces stiff opposition from hard-line traditionalists within the group.
Additional sources for this story
Some links will take you to other sites, in a new window.
I’m saying there’s no conflict between the two. Precisely the opposite of what you’re saying.
Insofar as they preached extra ecclesium nulla salus, they were incorrect.
Romans lays it all out. There can and will always be salvation apart from the Church.
“Extra eccesia nulla salus,” (which is Church teaching) and the controversy regarding its interprtation, was associated with the Feeneyites, not the SSPX.
Interestingly, the Feeneyites were regularized without the extraordinary step of a “Doctrinal Preamble,” despite the fact that their disagreement with Church teaching was arguably more fundamental than that of the SSPX.
Pius IX spoke ex cathedra one time in his pontificate — on the Immaculate Conception.
Even so, dogmatic definitions can be further clarified as was the case with the Council of Chalcedon in 451.
Vatican II developed the teaching of the Church on religious liberty. Apparently, you didn’t read all of Fr. Most’s confutation of Abp. Lefebvre’s interpretation of Quanta Cura.
Dignitatis Humanae was directed at the state using physical coercion.
“Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.”
I trust the pope’s judgement in how he’s chosen to resolve this.
I also don’t believe the Feeneyites were conducting their own consecrations or engaging in sedevacantism.
I acknowledge the Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church as the mother and teacher of all churches; and I promise true obedience to the Bishop of Rome, successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ.I likewise undoubtedly receive and profess all other things delivered, defined, and declared by the sacred Canons, and general Councils, and particularly by the holy Council of Trent, and by the ecumenical Council of the Vatican, particularly concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching. I condemn, reject, and anathematize all things contrary thereto, and all heresies which the Church hath condemned, rejected, and anathematized.
This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved, which I now freely profess and to which I truly adhere...
There can and will always be salvation apart from the Church.
>>There isn’t salvation apart from the Church, just that those who are saved, even if they might be outside the visible canonical structures of the Church, are saved through the Catholic Church spiritually.
There are, however, some subtleties in its interpretation (which the Feeneyites reject). The mainstream belief is that in addition to normal baptism by water, there is also baptism by fire (martyrdom) and baptism by desire (those who under different circumstances would be baptized Catholics).
Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for rejecting this teaching, but the excommunication was lifted in 1972, inexplicably without requiring him to recant. Likewise, his Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary are regularized, and operate freely in two dioceses in the Northeast.
One oddity of the SSPX situation is that Fr. Feeney's disagreement was absolutely fundamental, turning on a basic question of salvation. Yet, he and his followers were regularized. The SSPX has major disagreements, but they are on somewhat less fundamental questions, yet, they are being made to jump through hoops to gain recognition. Part of this is political, of course. Look into the politics of Europe to understand why.
“Romans lays it all out. There can and will always be salvation apart from the Church.”
Not for those who willfully reject the Church.
John 14:6: No one comes to the Father except through me.
Christ established His Church as the means of coming through Him.
I asked you two questions.
One, did the Feeneyites engage in consecrations?
Two, did they engage in sedevacantism?
My understanding is that they did neither.
SSPX is receiving special treatment in their favor. Us everyday joes, it doesn’t work this way for us. :)
If what you did that was wrong isn’t the same, then I can’t see why you should expect to be treated in the same fashion.
So you are saying they did consecrate those they were not permitted to consecrate? Whereas the Feeneyites did not?
I am not associated with SSPX in any way, and have never even been in one of their chapels.
I just think its important to consider their issues honestly.
The Holy Father is clearly trying to treat them better than they had been treated previously.
“I’m saying there’s no conflict between the two. Precisely the opposite of what you’re saying.”
Please reread this post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2823463/posts?page=111#111
Are you not willing to concede at least the appearance of conflict between Quanta Cura and Dignitas Humanae?
So you’re arguing as a Feeneyite. I thought so.
“Christ established His Church as the means of coming through Him.”
As a way, yes. As the way? No.
What He says is that, “I am the way, the truth, the light, and anyone who comes to the Father comes through me.”
Yes, he did establish His Church, for the explicit purpose of spreading the word to the world, and the great commission.
But God is God. He is not limited to the Church. God is sovereign. We cannot go through the rolls and declare the extent of the Body of Christ.
No, the Feeneyites did not ordain any bishops without permission as the SSPX did, or more specifically, as Msgr. Lefebvre did.
But, like I said, Fr. Feeney’s disagreement on theology was arguably more serious.
Yes, you can argue that the disobedient nature of the SSPX consecrations is the reason for the caution. I still think it’s odd that the Feeneyites were brought back in without even an explanation of their view on baptism.
Well I apologize then.
The difference, as I can see it, is that they consecrated those whom they did not have permission to do so. This is, as you’ve pointed different from the Feeneyites.
If they did different things, then I would not expect them to be treated in the same way.
As for treating them better, I think it’s a good thing, but they need to reciprocate.
I’m not sure we are privy to all the details.
If they repented of their error, that would probably be sufficient.
If there is one, I certainly cannot see it. Both affirm that freedom of coscience is a right derived from natural law.
That’s where Baptism of desire comes in. The important thing is that we do not know the extent of the elect. God will save those whom he will save. He doesn’t need the Church, the Church is there because we need her.
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.