Could reconciliation with the SSPX arrive with ease?

[pdudgeon]

I just hope SSPX bring something of their own to the table...

humility would be a good start.........

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Modernism? I don't think you understand what modernism is. The Church absolutely had the authority to take the measures they did against the SSPXers when they did. The error was by those in dissent, not by Rome. Should Pope Francis, in this time of forgiveness, welcome these rebels back into full communion in spite of their sins it will be because Christ's Church is merciful and tolerant of imperfections, not because the SSPXERS aren't in grave error. That is quite similar to the position of the "remarried" Catholic who cannot fully commit to what the known ideal is but can be dealt with pastorally.

The SSPX is in error, but a large part of the problem is the confusion that people have about Vatican II. I think a statement of clarification from the Vatican specifying which things in it are not binding would be very helpful in resolving this. Even though they are in error, it seems like the SSPX Catholics sincerely believe that they are doing the right thing for God. They believe that they are trying to avoid sin. So I wouldn't say that they are sinning.

 

[pdudgeon]

The SSPX is in error, but a large part of the problem is the confusion that people have about Vatican II. I think a statement of clarification from the Vatican specifying which things in it are not binding would be very helpful in resolving this.

the only problem with doing that is that it sets up a precident for future encyclicals, and encourages the cafeteria Catholics;
"if them, then why not me too" would be heard far and wide.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

the only problem with doing that is that it sets up a precident for future encyclicals, and encourages the cafeteria Catholics;
"if them, then why not me too" would be heard far and wide.

The confusion is that Vatican II is pastoral while at the same time containing things that are infallible. It already says in the Appendix of Lumen Gentium that not everything in the document is binding. So if the Vatican were to explain which things in it are not binding it would serve as clarification.

 

[Davidnic]

If they let them just ignore Vatican 2 without any kind of special structure or wording of continual dialogue it has ramifications on all other acts of the ordinary magisterium. That is actually quite a lot of things. So the agreement would have to be stated and worded in a way that they gave submission of intellect and will but had continuing questions about clarification that they addressed in dialogue.

I can think of two or three ways that could be worded and addressed. But some formulations wouldn't be acceptable to one side or the other. So we'll have to pray and humbly wait and see.

It is interesting speculation though. And I hope whatever they come up with is something that can also help bridge divides between the laity.

 

[MikeK]

The SSPX is in error, but a large part of the problem is the confusion that people have about Vatican II. I think a statement of clarification from the Vatican specifying which things in it are not binding would be very helpful in resolving this. Even though they are in error, it seems like the SSPX Catholics sincerely believe that they are doing the right thing for God. They believe that they are trying to avoid sin. So I wouldn't say that they are sinning.

I don't say anyone is guilty of sin. Both the remarried couple living as husband and wife, loving eachother and raising their families and the SSPXer are likely both doing what seems reasonable to them given the facts presented to them, their imperfect knowledge, and their imperfect will. Their actions might be objectively sinful, but that doesn't mean that they are guilty of sin.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

I don't say anyone is guilty of sin. Both the remarried couple living as husband and wife, loving eachother and raising their families and the SSPXer are likely both doing what seems reasonable to them given the facts presented to them, their imperfect knowledge, and their imperfect will. Their actions might be objectively sinful, but that doesn't mean that they are guilty of sin.

In your post, you said, "...not because the SSPXERS aren't in grave error" which implies that you think they are in grave error. A better comparison is with the Eastern Orthodox since people who divorce and then "marry" again didn't do it to please God.

 

[MikeK]

A better comparison is with the Eastern Orthodox. In your post, you said, "...not because the SSPXERS aren't in grave error" which implies that you think they are in grave error.

Yes, they are in grave error. That much has been made clear and that is why they are not in full communion with us today. I hope and pray that a method for pastorally accomodating these errors can be found if continued efforts to call them to repentance and back into full communion fail as they have for years.

 

[pdudgeon]

nm

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Yes, they are in grave error. That much has been made clear and that is why they are not in full communion with us today. I hope and pray that a method for pastorally accomodating these errors can be found if continued efforts to call them to repentance and back into full communion fail as they have for years.

The Church only uses the word "grave" when it comes to a mortal sin. And I wouldn't say that the SSPX are in a state mortal sin since one cannot sin by trying to avoid what they believe is sin.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

humility would be a good start.........

Yes and it's needed on both part of the table.
I'm sure pope Francis is humble so I firmly belive that things might happen.

It's not like SSPX moved away like Luther did in the 16th century.
I'm sure pope Francis admit that there where triggering factors in Vatican II that fueled SSPX and it's claims.

The confusion is that Vatican II is pastoral while at the same time containing things that are infallible. It already says in the Appendix of Lumen Gentium that not everything in the document is binding. So if the Vatican were to explain which things in it are not binding it would serve as clarification.

Yes I couldn't agree more.

Ah! like a teacher saying "All instruction is good for you, but not everything will be on the test...."

years later some instructors found that ^^ confusing as well.
so they just started leaving out the instruction and just 'taught the test'.
What they found was that test scores went up, but SAT scores went down....

go figure.
The reason was that the students had the answers
but they didn't have the 'why' behind those answers.
So while they could pass a test, they couldn't apply what they had learned.

on a personal note i would rather have the pastoral guidance retained and valued for what it is in Lumen Gentium,,
rather than to have it thought of as something of lesser importance, and thus easily disposed of if inconvenient.

Wait, what???

The Church only uses the word "grave" when it comes to a mortal sin. And I wouldn't say that the SSPX are in a state mortal sin since one cannot sin by trying to avoid what they believe is sin.

Another tumbs up to you LWU

 

[Albion]

The status, authority, or position of the Pope is pretty fundamental to the beliefs of the Church, though, isn't that so? Would some of you please fill in some of the blanks on this matter, then? For example, what exactly can be waived when it comes to SSPX, and why wouldn't the exact same thing/belief become optional for every other Catholic at the same time?

 

[Rhamiel]

I just hope SSPX bring something of their own to the table...

what do you mean by this?

I think before we start saying what is and isn't binding on them we should see what the Vatican agrees to

yes, a lot of people are putting the cart before the horse

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

what do you mean by this?

What I imply is that their orthodoxy is sorely needed in the church.

 

[MikeK]

The Church only uses the word "grave" when it comes to a mortal sin.

That is demonstrably false. The Church often uses the word "grave interchangeably with "serious". Please do not resort to preaching zealous error just because you hate the messenger.

CCC 395
CCC 1401
CCC 1457
CCC 1500
CCC 1515
CCC 1583
CCC 1628
CCC 2072
CCC 2080
CCC 2117
CCC 2152
CCC 2183
CCC 2223
CCC 2243
CCC 2254
CCC 2269
CCC 2282
CCC 2291 (in the first case)
CCC 2385
CCC 2498

And I wouldn't say that the SSPX are in a state mortal sin since one cannot sin by trying to avoid what they believe is sin.

I didn't state that anyone in the SSPX is or is not in a state of mortal sin. I don't know their hearts. You don't know what any individual SSPXer believes or knows.

 

[MikeK]

Another tumbs up to you LWU

You might pause to educate those thumbs. See above. I understand how badly you want your preferences to be acknowledged as truths, but for your own good I'd advise you to humbly submit to Mother Church, not your desires or those of people who oppine on what her Popes and Bishops "should" do.

 

[mea kulpa]

Submit to the historic infallible teachings of church

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

You might pause to educate those thumbs. See above. I understand how badly you want your preferences to be acknowledged as truths, but for your own good I'd advise you to humbly submit to Mother Church, not your desires or those of people who oppine on what her Popes and Bishops "should" do.

I would prefer if you don't derail this thread to be about my person, but rather focus to the topic of the OP.
Thanks.

 

[MikeK]

I would prefer if you don't derail this thread to be about my person, but rather focus to the topic of the OP.
Thanks.

I don't think it's wrong to call out a person who is congratulating another protest for preaching error. We've got to be careful about that. Also, when we err, it's best to thank those who correct us and educate us. I'mve learned a lot from OBOBers over the years who patiently shared their knowledge of the Church with me.

But yes, back to the OP. It would be wonderful if this would happen!

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

yes, a lot of people are putting the cart before the horse

True, it's easy to get ahead of oneself with news like this.