|
1 members (Michael_Thoma),
487
guests, and
95
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,511
Posts417,525
Members6,161
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful Member
|
|
Grateful Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528 |
John(harmon),
He has removed their excommunications but not resumed communion with them. That is a pretty big difference. I think he has, in fact, given them just enough rope to hang themselves with.
Fr. Deacon Lance That is indeed a noteworthy clarification. -- John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful Member
|
|
Grateful Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528 |
Two points in all of this:
1. An attitude of "this is what we are, take it or leave it" might be clear, but it hardly helps people to bridge real differences in order to achieve real ecumenical reunion.
2. Publicly reconciling with a bishop who denies the Holocaust gives the impression that the pope either agrees or doesn't think it's very important. That is worrisome in itself. It is also potentially very damaging to relations between the Catholic Church and Jews and anyone who thinks genocide is a bad thing.
-- John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 478
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 478 |
Publicly reconciling with a bishop who denies the Holocaust gives the impression that the pope either agrees or doesn't think it's very important. That is worrisome in itself. It is also potentially very damaging to relations between the Catholic Church and Jews and anyone who thinks genocide is a bad thing. The truth is that denying the Holocaust is not a barrier to communion with the Church. It is crazy and denies all evidence, and it might be based in antisemitism, but it is not grounds for excommunication by itself. We need to have perspective, as well: those who publicly and actively support and further the modern holocaust of abortion are more open to excommunication than someone who stupidly denies historical facts. It is much easier to comfortably condemn a past evil than one that is going on in our midst with public approbation. I agree that this move does give some the impression that the Church supports antisemitism (although it will give that impression mostly to those who already are antagonistical to the Church and this pope). But the Church has a clear teaching against genocide of any kind (including against the unborn), and anyone with an open heart knows this. The mercy of Christ must extend even to those who are stupid and even when it gives "bad press". The pope cannot simply refuse to act for unity just because some might get the wrong impression.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,133
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,133 |
Hi, As to the SSPX being heretics, what heretical notions do they espouse? They seem to believe (doctrinally) nothing except the constant Teaching of the Church.
But you're right, Memo: if they do not, then it will come to light soon enough.
Alexis If they do not accept the ordinary form of the Roman Rite, including its approved translations to the vernacular, they would be denying that the Pope (H.H. Paul VI, in this case) has the authority to approve such a liturgical reform. After Vatican I, that constitutes material heresy in the Catholic Church. They would also have to publicly and explicitly come to terms with the dogmatic constitutions of the Second Vatican Council. I am pretty sure they are not ready to do that with either one of them, but especially with LG. I still disagree with the lifting of excommunications at this time. I think it is premature. However, as I said, this might force the SSPX's doctrinal hand, so to speak and that way we will know what exactly are we dealing with. Shalom, Memo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1 |
Memo,
That's very interesting. I did not know that if one rejects approved translation to the vernacular, that one is a heretic. Do you mind citing the Vatican I document(s) that say this?
As far as the "dogmatic constitutions" of Vatican II, what would those be? It seems there is a lot of confusion on that point. Is religious liberty, as defined by Vatican II, now a Dogma of the Church? Where does it say that? Are there any "new" (as in, formerly defined, since we know there is no new authentic dogma) dogmata that Vatican II defined? If so, what are some of them?
Alexis
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1 |
There is no "confusion" at least in Rome regarding the Dogmatic Constitutions of Vatican II. The Dogmatic Constitutions, as specifically included in the titles of the documents and promulgated as such by Vatican II and Pope Paul VI are Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum.
I do not know why anyone is implying "confusion"; it is well known these are the dogmatic constitutions of that Council. Pretending they don't exist or feigning "confusion" does not change the fact that they were promulgated as Dogmatic Constitutions by a Council and ratified by Pope Paul VI.
It would seem reasonable that any reconciliation with Rome would include full acceptance of all of the dogmatic constitutions of the Catholic Church.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1 |
Diak,
I wasn't feigning anything. I just didn't know what the dogmata in question are.
Alexis
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,505 |
John,
If you knew the writings of Benedict XVI, the you know that this is certainly not true. He after all was the one that suggested that we come to a common understanding of the role of the Papacy in the first millenium and use that as a model for restored communion.He also said that we cannont expect anything more from them than that.
Stephanos I
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
There is no "confusion" at least in Rome regarding the Dogmatic Constitutions of Vatican II. The Dogmatic Constitutions, as specifically included in the titles of the documents and promulgated as such by Vatican II and Pope Paul VI are Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum. So rejection of these is heresy. If you knew the writings of Benedict XVI, the you know that this is certainly not true. He after all was the one that suggested that we come to a common understanding of the role of the Papacy in the first millenium and use that as a model for restored communion.He also said that we cannont expect anything more from them than that. This cannot be per above.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1 |
Bishop Fellay has barred Bishop Williamson from discussing historical matters in public: Superior General of the SSPX:
Bishop Williamson forbidden to speak
on political or historical matters
Communiqué of the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X,
Bishop Bernard Fellay
It has come to our attention that Bishop Richard Williamson, a member of our Society, granted an interview to a Swedish network. In this interview, he also commented on historical issues, especially on the genocide of Jews by the National-Socialist regime. It is obvious that a bishop speaks with religious authority solely on matters of faith and morals. Our Society claims no authority over historical or other secular matters.
The mission of the Society is the offering and restoration of authentic Catholic teaching, as handed down in the dogmas. We are known, accepted, and appreciated worldwide for this.
We view this matter with great concern, as this exorbitance has caused severe damage to our religious mission. We apologize to the Holy Father and to all people of good will for the trouble it has caused.
It must remain clear that those comments do not reflect in any way the attitude of our community. That is why I have forbidden Bishop Williamson to issue any public opinion on any political or historical matter until further notice.
The constant accusations against the Society have also apparently served the purpose of discrediting our mission. We will not allow this, but will continue to preach Catholic doctrine and to offer the Sacraments in the ancient rite.
Menzingen, January 27, 2009
+ Bishop Bernard Fellay
Superior General Alexis
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful Member
|
|
Grateful Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528 |
John,
If you knew the writings of Benedict XVI, the you know that this is certainly not true. He after all was the one that suggested that we come to a common understanding of the role of the Papacy in the first millenium and use that as a model for restored communion.He also said that we cannont expect anything more from them than that.
Stephanos I Father, bless ! I am relieved to read that. Thank you for posting it. I hope His Holiness (or one of his people) emphasizes that in public. -- John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful Member
|
|
Grateful Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528 |
Publicly reconciling with a bishop who denies the Holocaust gives the impression that the pope either agrees or doesn't think it's very important. That is worrisome in itself. It is also potentially very damaging to relations between the Catholic Church and Jews and anyone who thinks genocide is a bad thing. The truth is that denying the Holocaust is not a barrier to communion with the Church. It is crazy and denies all evidence, and it might be based in antisemitism, but it is not grounds for excommunication by itself. We need to have perspective, as well: those who publicly and actively support and further the modern holocaust of abortion are more open to excommunication than someone who stupidly denies historical facts. It is much easier to comfortably condemn a past evil than one that is going on in our midst with public approbation. I agree that this move does give some the impression that the Church supports antisemitism (although it will give that impression mostly to those who already are antagonistical to the Church and this pope). But the Church has a clear teaching against genocide of any kind (including against the unborn), and anyone with an open heart knows this. The mercy of Christ must extend even to those who are stupid and even when it gives "bad press". The pope cannot simply refuse to act for unity just because some might get the wrong impression. Thank you, Francis, for your replies ! -- John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 478
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 478 |
The L’Osservatore Romano has an editorial about this action. I though the following was especially relevant: With this act the Pope clears the field of possible pretexts for infinite arguing, thus entering into the true problem: the full acceptance of the Magisterium, including obviously the Second Vatican Council. While it is true that the Catholic Church was not born at the Council, it is also true that the Church renewed by the Council is not another Church, but is the same Church of Christ, founded upon the Apostles, guaranteed by the successor of Peter and therefore a living part of the tradition. With the announcement of Pope John, tradition certainly did not disappear, but rather it continues today in the forms characteristic of a ministry and a Magisterium that have been updated by the great Council.” Pope Benedict is eliminating the extraneous issues which can be debated ad nauseum and to no avail and instead is focusing on the true issue: will SSPX accept Vatican II as a true council of the Church?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1 |
Interesting, Francis. That could very well be the case. I don't know. Some are saying that it appears the Holy Father will not ask the Society to accept Vatican II by name. We'll see.
Alexis
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,133
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,133 |
Hi, That's very interesting. I did not know that if one rejects approved translation to the vernacular, that one is a heretic. Do you mind citing the Vatican I document(s) that say this? From Pastor Aeternus: 9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema. What the SSPX rejects is not merely a specific translation, but rather the validity of the Pauline reforms to the Roman rite. While the reform is being considered, you can make all the observations your conscience dictates, but once the Pope approves it, it is valid and licit. The only way to object to its validity is by challenging the authority of the Pope to approve such reforms in the first place. If this is actually their position, it is material heresy. Shalom, Memo
|
|
|
|
|
