Posted on 02/13/2013 7:03:15 PM PST by narses
Rorate can independently confirm the report --hinted at just now in Le Forum Catholique -- that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has sent a letter with a final offer to the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX): resume the dialogue with the Holy See by February 22, or else the Holy See will make an offer of reconciliation and full communion to individual SSPX priests. (What kind of offer or structural basis will be offered is unclear.)
We can only wonder how things would be like if dissenting liberal theological faculties and the individual heretics teaching in them were approached by the CDF with the same diligence and focus.
In other news: Mons. George Ratzinger highlights two events that deeply pained the Pope in his pontificate. These events may not have directly caused the resignation, but they certainly inflicted great bitterness on the heart of His Holiness, in his brother's opinion. They were the Vatican leaks scandal and relations with the Society of Saint Pius X (the failure of an agreement, possibly - the report speaks of "Pius Brotherhood", but that is only the literal translation of the name by which the SSPX is known in German):
Ratzinger said the pope’s time in office had “created great challenges for him,” highlighting two particular issues that concerned his brother.
"Within the church a lot of things happened, which brought up troubles, for example the relationship to the Pius Brotherhood or the irregularities within the Vatican, where the butler had let known indiscretions,” he said.
“These were emotional years, but with God's help and his own commitment, I think he mastered it rather well,” he added.
Ratzinger did not specify the pope’s issues with the Pius Brotherhood, or Society of St. Pius X as the group is formally known.
(NBC news report - tip: Sancte Pater)
Good for you, chest thumper, but it's not as available to most of us.
you wrote:
“Sure they can.”
Learn to read. I didn’t say they couldn’t. I said they wouldn’t.
“Pope Paul VI did the very such thing with Pope St Pius V’s Bull Quo Primum.”
400 years later - and after a ecumenical council called for changes. Also, I should have said “succeeding pope” rather than “subsequent”. When I said “subsequent” I meant whoever the NEXT pope is, not who the pope will be in 400 years.
“I recommend you read it.”
Did. Years ago. But not 400 years ago. Only 17 years ago.
“400 years later - and after a ecumenical council called for changes.”
The council was not called for “changes”; it was called for renewal and it failed miserably.
You wrote:
“The council was not called for “changes”; it was called for renewal and it failed miserably.”
Your viewpoint is irrelevant on that matter. An ecumenical council called for changes in the liturgy. I attend the Latin Mass. I still admit the truth: a council called for changes in the liturgy. That’s just a fact.
My viewpoint is no more irrelevant than yours. If you attend a Latin Mass, you apparently are not following the council’s “call for changes in the liturgy”.
For what good purpose was a council (”to call for changes in the liturgy”) if Pope Benedict would, 50 years later, proclaim the TLM to never have been abrogated? The novus ordo Mass that he now asks for a “reform of the reform”?
Answer: For no good purpose.
However, I am willing to entertain the thought that the council was hijacked for more nefarious reasons than just butchering the Holy Mass.
On the other hand you don't seem to remember very well:
To: steve86
Realistically I don’t see how he could do it.
6 posted on February 13, 2013 9:56:15 PM CST by vladimir998
Not familiar with this "Williamson" fellow. Is he an obscure SSPX historic figure?
You wrote:
“My viewpoint is no more irrelevant than yours.”
Actually, it is - on that matter.
“If you attend a Latin Mass, you apparently are not following the council’s “call for changes in the liturgy”.”
Nope. I only follow the changes made to the Mass by John XXIII and Pius XII (and whoever else I might be forgetting over the last 400 years).
“For what good purpose was a council (”to call for changes in the liturgy”) if Pope Benedict would, 50 years later, proclaim the TLM to never have been abrogated?”
The council did not deal with only the liturgy.
“The novus ordo Mass that he now asks for a “reform of the reform”? Answer: For no good purpose.”
That’s your conclusion. That’s not the conclusion of the Church.
“However, I am willing to entertain the thought that the council was hijacked for more nefarious reasons than just butchering the Holy Mass.”
What you will or will not entertain is irrelevant.
You wrote:
“On the other hand you don’t seem to remember very well:”
My memory is just fine.
“To: steve86 ‘Realistically I don’t see how he could do it.’”
You are not steve86 nor were you responding to post # 6. You were responding to this: “No subsequent pope will just role that back as if it didn’t exist.”
I was right. You were wrong. That won’t change.
No, he couldn’t. Benedict, with the moto proprio and the resulting clarifications, made it plain that ANY PRIEST could say the old Mass without any special permissions being necessary. No subsequent pope will just role that back as if it didn’t exist.
8 posted on February 13, 2013 10:28:26 PM CST by vladimir998 [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
Give it up. You can't get out of this one. If you don't understand the words "could", "couldn't", etc., don't use them. Otherwise, you seriously have a short-term memory problem.
“The council did not deal with only the liturgy.”
Bingo! Now you admit it. What else did the council deal with then? And how do you think it has succeeded?
You wrote:
“Give it up. You can’t get out of this one. If you don’t understand the words “could”, “couldn’t”, etc., don’t use them. Otherwise, you seriously have a short-term memory problem.”
Give it up. You can’t get out of this one. If you don’t understand the words “could” and “will”, etc., don’t argue with them. Otherwise, you seriously have a reading comprehension problem.
You wrote:
“Bingo! Now you admit it.”
She me where I ever denied it. Seriously, I have never, ever, anywhere claimed the council was only about the liturgy.
“What else did the council deal with then?”
Read the constitutions and other documents and find out.
“And how do you think it has succeeded?”
The question is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter how anyone would answer that question when the issue is whether or not changes to the liturgy were called for by the council.
In answer to both of your posts (#19 and #21) to me.
1. For a pope to make prudential errors is all too common. For example, to persistently invite SSPX to the table to accept Church doctrine and be restored to the Church is a matter of management and a strategy for dealing with the impudent miscreants and, apparently, a strategic error. That is recognized by the CDF itself in telling SSPX revolutionaries that it is time to take it or leave it and there will not be an infinitely dragged out farce in which SSPX presumes to "instruct" the Holy See as to Catholic doctrine.
2. Sending representatives to the UN as an NGO, is viewable as prudential mistake, and joining in the hoopla over global warming or global climate change or whatever secular envirowhackos are calling their fantasies this week is another, and likewise, as I am sure even the infernal SSPX will agree, Communion in the hand, Kumbaya songbooks, Kumbaya Masses.
3. The rebellious and heretical nuns of LCWR are in the process of being brought to heel in similar fashion. This is the Roman Catholic Church. It is not a democracy (for which SSPX ought to be thankful because they would have otherwise been summarily crushed firmly and finally if it was up to the folks in the pews).
4. No one resigned or died and made me, you, Fellay, Williamson, de Mallerais, Gallaraga, Barry Bonds, Charles Manson or Excommunicated Marcel pope. OTOH, John Paul I died and the second conclave of 1978 elected Blessed John Paul II to be pope and after he died, the conclave of 2005 made Benedict XVI pope. Don't hold your breath waiting for any of the schismatics or Bonds or Manson to be elected in 2013 or ever.
5. Now as to availability of the Tridentine Mass without having to make believe that there is some sort of religious communion with the schismatics of SSPX. In Northern Illinois, there is the magnificent St. John Cantius in Chicago, the all Tridentine St. Mary's Oratory in Rockford and several other locations. There are Tridentine Masses in the Southern Wisconsin dioceses of La Crosse, Madison, and, I believe, Milwaukee as well as at Green Bay. If there are SSPX schismatic outposts in these areas, I am not aware of them. Nor should I or any actual Catholic care to be aware. Sooooo, if you happen to be an actual Catholic, in communion with your diocesan bishop and the Holy See, why would you subject yourself to schismatic blather posing as "sermons" or encourage the schism in any way.
6. You can obtain a reasonably complete list of non-schismatic Tridentine Mass locations and schedules from Latin Mass Magazine or from Una Voce. You can ask your regular parish priest to schedule Tridentine Masses and to learn the rubrics as necessary. You can form a Tridentine Mass Society and respectfully petition your bishop for his assistance (that was good enough for Bill Buckley and is good enough for any of us in need of Tridentine Mass availability). Any of these alternatives is preferable to a stance of: "I am a victim of the real or imagined bad old Modernist meanies and I complain, therefore I am." And a darn sight more effective as well.
7. As to your exchanges with Vladimir998. Pope St. Pius V's Quo Primum is ultra vires in several ways. Popes can not exercise their authority in matters of liturgy so as to preclude their successors from exercising the same powers. We are a Church and not a mere museum. I take it you are referencing Pius V's purported calcification of Mass rubrics once and for all in the missal he issued and his threat of excommunication toward anyone who would modify his missal not only in his time but at any time in the future.
8. Of course, Quo Primum exempted older Mass uses such as the Ambrosian Rite of his own Dominican order and the Mesorabic Rite. I understand but have no specific reference that Pius V himself made subsequent changes in that missal of his, and that successors during the first fifty years after its issuance also made changes. Vatican II did indeed require a FEW changes in the rubrics, such as readings of Scripture in the vernacular from the Old Testament. It was a commission run by the execrable Archbishop Bugnini which made wholesale changes and created the Novus Ordo with no authority whatsoever from the Second Vatican Council. These revisions did not preserve chant as the primary music of the Mass as required by the Council. The Council did not order the substitution of On Eagles' Wings or envirowhackoist "hymns" for Palestrina and Mozart either.
9. Whatever the reasons for calling the council, it was called. The council was neither constrained nor limited by that call. The council acted in many ways, not all of them pleasing to the contemporary members of the Church. Pope Paul VI approved their acts. That left Marcel with two choices: Knuckle under and obey or leave. He left. He was excommunicated. He died excommunicated. He got what he deserved and effectively demanded.
10. Since you are questioning and resisting the acts of the council, ratified by the pope, and cozying up to the SSPXers, ummmm, who died and left YOU pope to sit in judgment on the council and on the pope? Note that God has helped us to put that time behind us by the papal elections of John Paul I, Blessed John Paul II, and Benedict XVI.
You said, to me, the Pope “couldn’t do it”. You didn’t say “wouldn’t”; you said “couldn’t”.
Regardless, you’re irrelevant to me. Good night and may you be in a better mood tomorrow.
Illicitly consecrated “Bishop” Richard Williamson, once an Anglican, then a Catholic, then an ex-Catholic member of SSPX consecrated by Marcel LeFebvre triggering latae sententiae excommunications of LeFebvre and all four of Lefebvre’s chosen to be consecrated illicitly as bishops. After excommunicated Marcel went to his final “reward,” B-XVI lifted the excommunications of the surviving SSPX bishops making Williamson arguably Catholic again, but in October 2012 he was expelled from even SSPX for his persistent Holocaust denial and “disobedience” to his alleged “religious superior” “Bishop” Fellay. Check him out in Wikipedia. He threatens to cause a schism from the schism by consecrating his own bishops.
you wrote:
“You said, to me, the Pope “couldn’t do it”.”
Before you said, “To: steve86”
Which is it?
“You didn’t say “wouldn’t”; you said “couldn’t”.”
Before you said, “To: steve86”
Which is it?
“Regardless, you’re irrelevant to me. Good night and may you be in a better mood tomorrow.”
My mood is irrelevant. And you’re still wrong and you’re still not steve86.
Yawn. A lot to read with nothing I didn’t know except for your omniscient Point 10. That’s news to me.
Note to self: Ignore future posts.
Who’s on first?
I don’t know, but you’re not even in the ballpark.
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.