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.
Even though this isn't a focal point for a lot of Catholics, I think it's important. If you read what Pope Benedict has written over the past 30 years, I think you come to the conclusion that he is using this situation to correct mistake that have been made. This isn't just about the SSPX, or their opponents, the Pope is using this to help the entire Church. Again, I come to this conclusion by reading different things he's written over the years.
Do you think the Pope is going to get, “tricked” by the SSPX, or that he can’t handle this?
“You stated that you believe the Pope was wrong.”
Really? Where?
{{{CRICKETS}}}
No, I have zero concern with how Pope Benedict is going to handle this.
I am not pleased with how Fellay is handling all this.
Arguing that you can toss Vatican II is no different than tossing out Trent.
Same motivations, btw.
“No. Papal infallibility only “kicks in” when the papal statement is made from the chair of Peter.”
And only regarding issues of faith and morals.
“What’s more, an infallible teaching can never be contradicted, even by a subsequent pope. Therefore, no pope is free to teach error and no Catholic is free to accept error. Deal with it.”
So there’s your answer to Peter’s ‘error’ on circumcision. Which is why I’m sure that no Christians get circumcised anymore these days.
You keep evading the issue. How can a Catholic accept Vatican II if it conflicts with Trent?
You don’t need to be. I think the Pope can handle it. As long as the Pope is negotiating with him, we can afford a little charity, as a courtesy to the Pope.
By the way, no one in the world knows more about the SSPX that Pope Benedict. He even knows more than his predecessor, because he was handling it for him. He know Bishop Fellay, and all the issues. And he’s extremely intelligent. He knows what he’s doing.
That doesn't sound very Christian to me.
but if I can come over
When much is given, much is required.
Where precisely does Trent conflict with Vatican II?
“Where precisely does Trent conflict with Vatican II?”
On religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality. Vatican II outlawed the foundation of historic Christendom, the Catholic state. Paul 6 ordered Spain and other Catholic states to secularize themselves in compliance with the errors of Vatican II. Now mosques are going up all across Spain (and the rest of once-Catholic Europe, ruined by Vatican II).
“You stated that you believe the Pope was wrong.”
Really? Where?
{{{CRICKETS}}}
I don’t, because it cost me some of my best friends to come over. It’s difficult, but they are having the pope treat them very kindly and they don’t seem to appreciate it.
You reject Vatican II. Plain as day. Pope is wrong you are right.
Do I need to give you a road map?
“they are having the pope treat them very kindly and they don’t seem to appreciate it.”
The SSPX appreciates the pope’s kindness from very much. However, their mission is to safeguard doctrine like St. Athanasius in this time of diabolical disorientation.
On religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality
>>Trent said nothing about religious liberty, nor ecumenism, or collegiality.
While Vatican II’s implementation did a lot of damage to the Western Church, it has helped Eastern Catholics return to our traditions and to attain equality, at least on paper, with Western Catholics.
Episcopal collegiality has been a part of the Church since the beginning. The fall of the Roman Empire in the West resulted in an excessive centralization that reduced the bishops to being vicars of the Roman Pontiff
I might remind you that Pope St. Gregory the Great forcefully taught against this notion when he condemned the title “Ecumenical Patriarch”.
Vatican II has been horribly implemented by bureaucrats who are not men of faith.
Spain’s secularization evolved out of a reaction to the Franco regime’s close ties to the Catholic Church.
Where did Vatican II declare that Dogmatic?
Actions of the Ordinary Magisterium don't need conciliar approval.
-Theo
If there ever were to be a reunion council with the Orthodox, Lateran 1 - Vatican II would likely be declared to have been local councils as a precondition. Then everything would be hashed out.
Councils that claimed ecumenical approbation have been annulled before. Constantinople IV is a prime example.
This council, designated as the eighth ecumenical council by western canonists, is not found in any canonical collections of the Byzantines; its acts and canons are completely ignored by them. Modern scholars have shown that it was included in the list of ecumenical councils only later, that is, after the eleventh century. We have decided to include the council, for the sake of historical completeness.
Emperor Basil I and the patriarch Ignatius, after being restored to his see of Constantinople, asked Pope Nicholas I to call a council to decide about the bishops and priests who had been ordained by Photius. It was held at Constantinople after the arrival of legates from Pope Hadrian II, who had meanwhile succeeded Nicholas. These legates were Donatus, Stephen and Marinus and they presided at the council. It began in the cathedral of Hagia Sophia on 5 October 869. The tenth and last session was held on 28 February 870, when 27 canons were read out and approved by the council. All who were willing to sign the Liber satisfactionis, which had been sent by Pope Hadrian II, were admitted to the council. The account made by Anastasius contains the authentic list of those who signed the acts of the council. Emperor Basil I and his sons, Constantine and Leo, signed the acts after the patriarchs and in the same year they promulgated the council’s decisions, after drawing up a decree for this purpose.
As regards the canonical authority of these deliberations, various facts regarding the council held in the cathedral of Hagia Sophia in November 879, so that Photius might be restored to the see of Constantinople, should be remembered. Peter, a Roman cardinal, presided at this council. It took account of a letter of Pope John VIII, which had been sent to the emperor and translated into Greek. This reads (chapter 4): “We declare that the synod held at Rome against the most holy patriarch Photius in the time of the most blessed pope Hadrian, as well as the holy synod of Constantinople attacking the same most holy Photius (i.e., in 869-870), are totally condemned and abrogated and must in no way be invoked or named as synods. Let this not happen”. Some people have thought that this text had been altered by Photius; but in the so-called “unaltered” text of the letter this passage is replaced by dots (. . .), and the following passage reads: “For the see of blessed Peter, the key-bearer of the heavenly kingdom, has the power to dissolve, after suitable appraisal, any bonds imposed by bishops. This is so because it is agreed that already many patriarchs, for example Athanasius .. .. after having been condemned by a synod, have been, after formal acquittal by the apostolic see, promptly reinstated”. Ivo of Chartres explicitly affirms: “The synod of Constantinople which was held against Photius must not be recognised. John VIII wrote to the patriarch Photius (in 879): We make void that synod which was held against Photius at Constantinople and we have completely blotted it out for various reasons as well as for the fact that Pope Hadrian did not sign its acts”. Ivo adds from the instructions that John VIII gave to his legates for the council in 879: “You will say that, as regards the synods which were held against Photius under Pope Hadrian at Rome or Constantinople, we annul them and wholly exclude them from the number of the holy synods”. For these reasons there is no ground for thinking that the text was altered by Photius.
An authentic copy of the acts of the council of 869-870 was sent to Rome, as of right. Anastasius, the librarian, ordered a complete copy to be made for himself. Then, when the legates’ copy was stolen, he translated his own copy into Latin, on Pope Hadrian’s orders, making a word for word translation. Anastasius also makes it plain that the Greeks adopted every means to distort the acts, “by abbreviating here and by expanding or changing there”. He adds: “Whatever is found in the Latin copy of the acts of the eighth synod is completely free from the alloy of falsehood; however, whatever more is found in the Greek text is thoroughly infected with poisonous lies”.
The Greek text has been partly preserved from total destruction in the summary of an anonymous writer who copied out anti-Photian texts. This summary has 14 canons, as opposed to the 27 of Anastasius, and only contains excerpts, dealing with the most important points, of these canons. Where comparison is possible, the Latin version of Anastasius hardly departs from the Greek text. Indeed it is so literal that at times it can only be understood by comparison with the Greek text, and when the latter is missing we must sometimes rely on conjecture.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/CONSTAN4.HTM
And the Council of Florence only recognized eight ecumenical councils,according to its acts.
In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit. I, N. , elected pope, with both heart and mouth confess and profess to almighty God, whose church I undertake with his assistance to govern, and to blessed Peter, prince of the apostles, that as long as I am in this fragile life I will firmly believe and hold the catholic faith, according to the tradition of the apostles, of general councils and of other holy fathers, especially of the eight holy universal councils — namely the first at Nicaea, the second at Constantinople, the third which was the first at Ephesus, the fourth at Chalcedon, the fifth and sixth at Constantinople, the seventh at Nicaea and the eighth at Constantinople.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm
It’s not going to happen. Everyone somehow believes that by tossing the Councils that they don’t like is somehow going to fix the problem.
See, this is why Fellay wants to toss them out altogether. He somehow believes that by rejecting the authority of the magisterium is going to somehow help him. No, it’s not.
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.