Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SSPX response to 'Doctrinal Preamble' surprises Vatican
Catholic Culture ^ | December 21, 2011 | Diogenes

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.



TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Ministry/Outreach
KEYWORDS: catholic; sspx
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-205 next last

1 posted on 12/21/2011 2:15:13 PM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom; thefrankbaum; Tax-chick; GregB; saradippity; Berlin_Freeper; Litany; SumProVita; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 12/21/2011 2:15:49 PM PST by NYer ("Be kind to every person you meet. For every person is fighting a great battle." St. Ephraim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

The SSPX folks need to get with the program. This footdragging isn’t helping.


3 posted on 12/21/2011 2:19:32 PM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
The SSPX folks need to get with the program. This footdragging isn’t helping.

What can they HOPE to achieve with this footdragging? Sympathy? An edge? What?
I don't get it.

4 posted on 12/21/2011 2:36:55 PM PST by cloudmountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I hope that there is a way to get agreement with the SSPX but I am thinking that this is going to be difficult for a number of reasons.

Many of the members of the Society who had a willingness to accept V2 came over back in ‘88 with the founding of the FSSP. What’s left are the uber-traditionalists.

It doesn’t help that many (most probably) bishops are fighting Summorum Pontificum with passive resistance and by imposing further requirements not in the original motu proprio.

Furthermore, while most of the bishops at V2 likely didn’t intend the chaos and wickedness in the Church in the post-conciliar years; but when reading the council documents, it’s clear that they left enough room for this to happen. Coupled with weak leadership from Paul VI, the infiltrators and liberals had a grand old time taking a wrecking ball to the pre-conciliar church.

I can’t say I blame the SSPX for being cautious.


5 posted on 12/21/2011 2:44:54 PM PST by jtal (Runnin' a World in Need with White Folks' Greed - since 1492)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
acknowledging the authority of Vatican II

As the SSPX is neither unprincipled nor Protestant, they shouldn't do this.

6 posted on 12/21/2011 2:51:40 PM PST by steve86 (Acerbic by nature, not nurture (Could be worst in 40 years))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jtal
Excellent summary. Vatican II is doctrinally sound but vague enough for rebels like Matt Fox. Benedict XVI's Motu from July 7, 2007 is brilliant and loving for all to accept or reject at the risk of divine reward or punishment. That SSPX would reject the Motu is expected since they are like the Russian and Greek Orthodox: full of themselves and could care less about charity.

A person becomes humble when he has either bad days, someone praying for a miracle or good philosophy books (usually it takes all three, especially prayers).
7 posted on 12/21/2011 3:15:47 PM PST by Falconspeed ("Keep your fears to yourself, but share your courage with others." Robert Louis Stevenson (1850-94))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

Wrong. The novus ordoites need to get with the program.


8 posted on 12/21/2011 3:39:47 PM PST by nd76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nd76

Not how it works, sorry. I’m a convert. The SSPX folks have to come over, just like I did. They don’t get to tell the church how to run things until they agree to serve the Pope.

I don’t see any reason why they should be treated any different from me. The Pope has been very generous and fair, but he’s not getting the reaction that comes from those who are sincerely willing to come over.


9 posted on 12/21/2011 4:58:11 PM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

“Not how it works, sorry. I’m a convert. The SSPX folks have to come over, just like I did. They don’t get to tell the church how to run things until they agree to serve the Pope.”

We you became Catholic, did you officially “agree to serve the Pope” or agree to obey the creed? Many occasions in Catholic history, obeying the creed required opposing the pope. Now is one of those times.


10 posted on 12/21/2011 6:23:50 PM PST by mas cerveza por favor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

The SSPX will remain in “imperfect communion” with the Holy See until the Second Coming if the Old Believers’s schism in the Russian Orthodox Church sets any precedent.

The latter are still protesting against liturgical and disciplinary changes that were made in 1666-67.

Let us pray that is not the case.


11 posted on 12/21/2011 6:30:36 PM PST by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jtal

>>Coupled with weak leadership from Paul VI,<<

And JPII who didn’t help much with leadership. He isn’t getting his sainthood on his leadership abilities.


12 posted on 12/21/2011 7:06:37 PM PST by netmilsmom (Happiness is a choice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mas cerveza por favor

I agreed to do two things -

to Obey the Creed, and God’s ministers here on earth, of whom the Pope is the head.

It is not one or the other, but both.

Are the SSPX willing to accept that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, and the universal head of the Church? Until then, there is no union.

The SSPX seem to want to have their cake and eat it to, they must do as all the rest of us did.


13 posted on 12/21/2011 7:12:03 PM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

“Are the SSPX willing to accept that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, and the universal head of the Church?”

Yes, actually they do. That is one of the many reasons I think that caused the Pope to lift the excommunications and to engage in these intramural discussions.


14 posted on 12/21/2011 7:14:13 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rzman21

I was a protestant. I do not believe that the reasons that Luther left are extant to the Church today. I decided it was time for me to come back to Rome.

I don’t have any sympathy for the SSPX folks. Yes, obedience is hard, but if I can come over, so can they, and they grew up with the Church, while I did not.


15 posted on 12/21/2011 7:15:04 PM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

“...but if I can come over, so can they,...”

Come over from where? They are Catholic. The reason they are in this series of discussions is in obedience. What are you claiming, that they are NOT Catholic?


16 posted on 12/21/2011 7:17:17 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: narses

Then it is time for them to come over into the fulness of the church, and to cross the rubicon.

Yes, it’s scary. I remember my confirmation. I could have turned aside. I could have chosen to go in a different direction, but I chose to take that uncertain step forward, and leave my doubts and misgivings behind.


17 posted on 12/21/2011 7:17:22 PM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

“Then it is time for them to come over into the fulness of the church, and to cross the rubicon.”

You appear to be claiming that the SSPX are NOT fully Catholic. Why?


18 posted on 12/21/2011 7:20:03 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: narses

Then why are they footdragging, if they, by their own admission, see nothing wrong with the decision of the Pope, but want more time?

If there is nothing wrong with the Pope’s decision, then it is time. We need to be one, together in Christ, and not divided.


19 posted on 12/21/2011 7:20:14 PM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

“Then why are they footdragging, ...”

What do the speed of the discussions have to do with you or the Catholicity of the SSPX?

“If there is nothing wrong with the Pope’s decision,...”

What decision of His Holiness are you referring to? The Motu Proprio acknowledging that the SSPX has been right these many years and that the Tridentine Mass was NEVER suppressed? Or the decision by the Holy Father to lift the excommunications acknowledging that the SSPX clergy are actually, in fact, not excommunicated?


20 posted on 12/21/2011 7:24:46 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: narses

I know former SSPX who, when they came to understand what was really going on, left the SSPX, and are now Catholic.

They did so before this whole move over. They were treated very poorly by their ‘friends’, when they were received. She and her husband are rather amused by the proceedings now, given everything that they went through before.

If they are Catholic, in obedience to the Pope, then they should accept this decision and continue to show that they are no longer schismatics. This is like a maiden wavering on the altar, arguing over floral arrangements.


21 posted on 12/21/2011 7:26:39 PM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

“I know former SSPX who, when they came to understand what was really going on, left the SSPX, and are now Catholic.”

What were they before they were “Catholic”?

Seriously, folks who attend SSPX services are not “SSPX”. Only the actual members of the Society are, well, members and they are all Catholic.

“...then they should accept this decision and continue to show that they are no longer schismatics.”

What “decision” should they “accept”? And when did they move from no longer being excommunicated to being, in your words, “schismatic”? What determination of the Holy See are you basing that defamatory claim?


22 posted on 12/21/2011 7:30:15 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: narses

“What do the speed of the discussions have to do with you or the Catholicity of the SSPX?”

To me their reluctance demonstrates their lack of Catholicity. They are not ready. Part of the Creed are the Councils, and that includes Vatican II. It’s all bundled up together.

“The Motu Proprio acknowledging that the SSPX has been right these many years and that the Tridentine Mass was NEVER suppressed? Or the decision by the Holy Father to lift the excommunications acknowledging that the SSPX clergy are actually, in fact, not excommunicated?”

That they are unwilling to accept Vatican II is evidence that they again, are not ready. All the councils have to be accepted. Not just all save one. They can’t hold out, and say, no, we refuse. There’s no difference here, than between the Chalcedonians and the non-Chalcedonians. Those who could not accept Chalcedon, left and did just as the SSPX did. Some have been brought back into Catholicity after all this time, some have not.

As soon as they cross that step and profess that they believe that the Pope is the head of the Church, then the consequence of this is that the Councils follow. That includes Vatican II.

I had to say the same when I was confirmed. I had to study all of the council decisions, especially from Trent onwards to make sure that I understood them and what the Church taught and believed.


23 posted on 12/21/2011 7:32:55 PM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

“I agreed to do two things - to Obey the Creed, and God’s ministers here on earth, of whom the Pope is the head.”

If you honestly believed that parts of Vatican II are against the creed, as does the SSPX, what would you do?


24 posted on 12/21/2011 7:35:49 PM PST by mas cerveza por favor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

“To me their reluctance demonstrates their lack of Catholicity.”

That’s nice. You sit in judgment rather than the Holy Father?

“That they are unwilling to accept Vatican II is evidence that they again, are not ready.”

What part of a “Pastoral Council” postulates new Dogma? What are you claiming that the SSPX is doing that, in your personal, private judgment, makes them “schismatic”?


25 posted on 12/21/2011 7:36:11 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: narses

“What were they before they were “Catholic”?”

They were always Catholic. They did not understand that the Lefebvrists were schismatics. When they did, they left and rejoined the Church.

“Seriously, folks who attend SSPX services are not “SSPX”. Only the actual members of the Society are, well, members and they are all Catholic.”

Now, yes. Back then? No.

“What “decision” should they “accept”?”

This one? They must accept Vatican II, just like the rest of the Councils. If they sincerely believe that they pope is the head of the Church, then they have to accept the Councils too.

“And when did they move from no longer being excommunicated to being, in your words, “schismatic”? What determination of the Holy See are you basing that defamatory claim?”

As I said, that is my opinion. I regard their footdragging as evidence that they remain schismatic and are not ready. If they want to demonstrate their Catholicity, accepting this preamble was a good way to do so. They chose a route that indicates they are not ready at present.

Which is a pity. But, as I said, obedience is hard.


26 posted on 12/21/2011 7:38:28 PM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: mas cerveza por favor

“If you honestly believed that parts of Vatican II are against the creed, as does the SSPX, what would you do?”

I wouldn’t be lying to other people and calling myself Catholic.

I also wouldn’t be saying that I believed that the pope was the head of the Church. They don’t not really, because they aren’t willing to accept his authority.

I wasn’t ready to come over until I was willing to accept his authority. Seems they aren’t ready yet either. Sad.


27 posted on 12/21/2011 7:40:50 PM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

“They were always Catholic. .... When they did, they left and rejoined the Church.”

If they were always Catholic, what did they “rejoin”?

“As I said, that is my opinion.”

Right. A very protestant point of view.

“I regard their footdragging as evidence that they remain schismatic and are not ready.”

You have no standing to make such a decision. You are arrogating the duties of the Vatican. Why?


28 posted on 12/21/2011 7:46:13 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: narses

“That’s nice. You sit in judgment rather than the Holy Father?”

Yep, sure do. As I said the Holy Father has been extremely patient with them. I, call ‘em as I see ‘em. If you are offended by my honest assessment of the affairs, then so be it. I’m hoping one day these stiff necks will wake up to the reality that the sooner they submit the better off they will be in the long run.

“What part of a “Pastoral Council” postulates new Dogma?”

When the Pope says it does. That’s how it works, narses. What next? Are you going to argue that the Immaculate Conception isn’t really true, either?

“What are you claiming that the SSPX is doing that, in your personal, private judgment, makes them “schismatic”?”

By refusing to accept Vatican II, they are demonstrating that they are still Schismatic.


29 posted on 12/21/2011 7:46:56 PM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

“Yep, sure do. “

By refusing to assent to the authority of the Holy Father in this matter you are demonstrating that you are possibly Schismatic. Why would you do that?


30 posted on 12/21/2011 7:49:30 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: narses

“When the Pope says it does.”

What new Dogma has the Pope said Vatican II promulgated?


31 posted on 12/21/2011 7:50:19 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

“When the Pope says it does.”

What new Dogma has the Pope said Vatican II promulgated?


32 posted on 12/21/2011 7:51:15 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: narses

“If they were always Catholic, what did they “rejoin”?”

The Church, when they left their Lefebrist parish, and regularized things with the bishop. As I said, they were unaware of the distinction. When they were made aware of the distiction, they left.

You can leave without leaving, many find themselves outside, while still remaining Catholic, Narses. That is why people state they are Catholic and in good standing. Both are important.

This is why I state that they were always Catholic, because they were never in wilfull disobedience to His Holiness.

“You have no standing to make such a decision. You are arrogating the duties of the Vatican. Why?”

What decision am I making? I am simply stating my opinion of the affairs as they stand. It is up to the Pope to decide what to do, if anything about this letter. I believe they are not ready, but I’m not going to be the one to state that they should not keep working towards the ultimate goal.

Far from it. I’m stating that their reluctance is, at present, evidence that they are not ready. That can and will change over time.

As for being protestant, fair enough. I was what I was. But the difference here is that I accept the Second Vatican council, warts and all. :) If an outright former heretic can do this then so can the Lefebrvists.


33 posted on 12/21/2011 7:55:51 PM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

What new Dogma has the Pope said Vatican II promulgated?


34 posted on 12/21/2011 7:58:47 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: narses

“By refusing to assent to the authority of the Holy Father in this matter you are demonstrating that you are possibly Schismatic. Why would you do that?”

The insistance that you were right all along about certain things indicates to me that obedience isn’t high on your list of virtues.

I’m just saying. That’s what I read into what you posted earlier, without any prompting.

And yes, I am entitled to an opinion and to express an opinion of my brothers and sisters in Christ. It is the Pope who ultimately decides what happens from here.

I’m not sure why you believe footdragging should be insulated from criticism.


35 posted on 12/21/2011 7:59:35 PM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: narses

That the mass in the vernacular is equally valid to the tridentine mass.

That seems to be a sticky wicket.


36 posted on 12/21/2011 8:00:24 PM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

“And yes, I am entitled to an opinion and to express an opinion of my brothers and sisters in Christ.”

Can you define the sin of detraction?


37 posted on 12/21/2011 8:02:08 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

Can you define “Dogma”?


38 posted on 12/21/2011 8:03:16 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: narses

The statement that mass in the vernacular is equally valid to a tridentine mass, yes, that’s doctrinal.

Dogma is anything to do with the essential teachings of the church. Last I checked there was nothing in dogma requiring the use of Latin.

Can you define the sin of pride?


39 posted on 12/21/2011 8:16:23 PM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: narses

You didn’t answer my question.

Do you expect that this footdragging would escape criticism altogether?

The Church is way bigger than SSPX. Newsflash, it’s not all about you.


40 posted on 12/21/2011 8:18:15 PM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

“Dogma is anything to do with the essential teachings of the church.”

What Dogma did Vatican II introduce?

“Last I checked there was nothing in dogma requiring the use of Latin.”

What did Vatican II teach about Latin in the Mass?


41 posted on 12/21/2011 8:20:27 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

“And yes, I am entitled to an opinion and to express an opinion of my brothers and sisters in Christ.”

Can you define the sin of detraction?


42 posted on 12/21/2011 8:21:40 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

“I, call ‘em as I see ‘em.”

Newsflash, it’s not all about you.


43 posted on 12/21/2011 8:22:37 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: narses

That mass in the vernacular was equally valid to the tridentine mass.

I believe I said that earlier...


44 posted on 12/21/2011 8:23:47 PM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: narses

You first. :)


45 posted on 12/21/2011 8:24:10 PM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi; thesaleboat; Sick of Lefties; Chainmail; StrongandPround; lilyramone; crusadersoldier; ..

“That mass in the vernacular was equally valid to the tridentine mass.”

Where did Vatican II declare that Dogmatic?


46 posted on 12/21/2011 8:25:46 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: narses

Which is why I’m telling the truth out of love.

Is that permitted these days?

It’s not about me, but about what’s best for everyone, the church as a whole and for the Lefebvrists. I’ve said, many times, that the Chuch is stronger with them than without.

And apparently I must not be far off the mark given your comments here. Seems like I touched a nerve.


47 posted on 12/21/2011 8:26:50 PM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: narses

In the second Vatican council.


48 posted on 12/21/2011 8:27:40 PM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

“Which is why I’m telling the truth out of love.”

What “truth”?


49 posted on 12/21/2011 8:28:37 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

I ask, Where did Vatican II declare that Dogmatic?

You reply, In the second Vatican council.

Bzzzt. Fail. In fact Vatican II taught no such thing. Try again.


50 posted on 12/21/2011 8:29:55 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-205 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson