SSPX expels Bishop Williamson

[Jetavan]

The Society of St Pius X has confirmed that it has expelled the English Bishop Richard Williamson.

Bishop Williamson, 72, one of four men illicitly ordained in 1988 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in Écône, Switzerland, has been a controversial figure, particularly for his views on Jews, who he has called the “enemies of Christ”.

Hallelujah.

 

[Papist]

The Society of St Pius X has confirmed that it has expelled the English Bishop Richard Williamson.

Bishop Williamson, 72, one of four men illicitly ordained in 1988 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in Écône, Switzerland, has been a controversial figure, particularly for his views on Jews, who he has called the “enemies of Christ”.

Hallelujah.

I hope this will reboot negotiations with the Vatican.

 

[Apotheoun]

The Society of St Pius X has confirmed that it has expelled the English Bishop Richard Williamson.

Bishop Williamson, 72, one of four men illicitly ordained in 1988 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in Écône, Switzerland, has been a controversial figure, particularly for his views on Jews, who he has called the “enemies of Christ”.

Hallelujah.

I hope this will reboot negotiations with the Vatican.

I don't think that Bishop Williamson is the reason for the failed negotiations.  In fact, it sounds like he hasn't really been "in the loop" at the SSPX for a while.  I think the real sticking point between the SSPX and the Roman bureaucracy continues to be the place of Vatican II in Roman Catholic teaching.

 

[Papist]

The Society of St Pius X has confirmed that it has expelled the English Bishop Richard Williamson.

Bishop Williamson, 72, one of four men illicitly ordained in 1988 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in Écône, Switzerland, has been a controversial figure, particularly for his views on Jews, who he has called the “enemies of Christ”.

Hallelujah.

I hope this will reboot negotiations with the Vatican.

I don't think that Bishop Williamson is the reason for the failed negotiations.  In fact, it sounds like he hasn't really been "in the loop" at the SSPX for a while.  I think the real sticking point between the SSPX and the Roman bureaucracy continues to be the place of Vatican II in Roman Catholic teaching.

At one point throughout the negotiations, Bp. Fellay was starting to sound very positive about normalization of relations with Rome. Suddenly, the ultra-anti-VII crowd started moaning and groaning, and Bp. Fellay reversed his position. We know that Bp. Williamson is the most vocal proponent of the ultra-anti-VII idea and I would have a hard time believing that he didn't influence the reversal of position on the part of Bp. Fellay.

 

[Jetavan]

VATICAN CITY "Patience, serenity, perseverance and trust are needed" as the Vatican continues talks aimed at full reconciliation with the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X, said a statement from the Vatican commission overseeing the discussions.

The Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei," in a statement released Saturday, said the leadership of the SSPX had requested "additional time for reflection and study" before responding to Pope Benedict XVI's latest efforts to reintegrate them into the church.

"A culminating point along this difficult path" was reached June 13 when the commission gave the SSPX a final "doctrinal declaration together with a proposal for the canonical normalization of its status within the Catholic Church," the statement said.
....
Just three days before the Vatican statement was published, the SSPX announced it had ousted British Bishop Richard Williamson, one of the four bishops ordained by SSPX founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre without papal approval in 1988.

 

[choy]

I don't know many SSPX followers but the few I know are very loyal to Bishop Williamson.  Whatever faction reintegrates with the RC, for sure there still would be a hardline SSPX faction that would remain outside the RC.  And I think this time the schism will be formal.

 

[Papist]

I don't know many SSPX followers but the few I know are very loyal to Bishop Williamson.  Whatever faction reintegrates with the RC, for sure there still would be a hardline SSPX faction that would remain outside the RC.  And I think this time the schism will be formal.

And the Williamson faction will slip into irrelevance.

 

[choy]

I don't know many SSPX followers but the few I know are very loyal to Bishop Williamson.  Whatever faction reintegrates with the RC, for sure there still would be a hardline SSPX faction that would remain outside the RC.  And I think this time the schism will be formal.

And the Williamson faction will slip into irrelevance.

I don't think so.  They are the radical, die-hard, ultra-trads.  I have a friend who used to be ultra-trad and is now Romanian Greek Catholic.  He does say there is some attraction for some people to ultra-traditionalism.  Given the wide variety of Christianity today and even non-Christian religions people adhere to, there is attraction to almost anything.  They will have their niche market.  They might even gather together the various sedevacantist groups and form a unified group.  Although I don't know how that would work out, they're not really known for obedience to bishops

 

[Papist]

I don't know many SSPX followers but the few I know are very loyal to Bishop Williamson.  Whatever faction reintegrates with the RC, for sure there still would be a hardline SSPX faction that would remain outside the RC.  And I think this time the schism will be formal.

And the Williamson faction will slip into irrelevance.

I don't think so.  They are the radical, die-hard, ultra-trads.  I have a friend who used to be ultra-trad and is now Romanian Greek Catholic.  He does say there is some attraction for some people to ultra-traditionalism.  Given the wide variety of Christianity today and even non-Christian religions people adhere to, there is attraction to almost anything.  They will have their niche market.  They might even gather together the various sedevacantist groups and form a unified group.  Although I don't know how that would work out, they're not really known for obedience to bishops

The bizarre cult-like behavior of the williamites is the very thing that will cause them to become irrelevant.

 

[choy]

I don't know many SSPX followers but the few I know are very loyal to Bishop Williamson.  Whatever faction reintegrates with the RC, for sure there still would be a hardline SSPX faction that would remain outside the RC.  And I think this time the schism will be formal.

And the Williamson faction will slip into irrelevance.

I don't think so.  They are the radical, die-hard, ultra-trads.  I have a friend who used to be ultra-trad and is now Romanian Greek Catholic.  He does say there is some attraction for some people to ultra-traditionalism.  Given the wide variety of Christianity today and even non-Christian religions people adhere to, there is attraction to almost anything.  They will have their niche market.  They might even gather together the various sedevacantist groups and form a unified group.  Although I don't know how that would work out, they're not really known for obedience to bishops

The bizarre cult-like behavior of the williamites is the very thing that will cause them to become irrelevant.

True, but they will remain annoying for some time before they disappear into obscurity.  I wonder though how many of their followers are actually leaning towards Williamson than Fellay.  If only Williamson's views aren't bordering lunacy, it would actually be admirable for someone to stick to their guns and say, "you've abandonned Tradition and we won't reunite until you return to it."

 

[Papist]

I don't know many SSPX followers but the few I know are very loyal to Bishop Williamson.  Whatever faction reintegrates with the RC, for sure there still would be a hardline SSPX faction that would remain outside the RC.  And I think this time the schism will be formal.

And the Williamson faction will slip into irrelevance.

I don't think so.  They are the radical, die-hard, ultra-trads.  I have a friend who used to be ultra-trad and is now Romanian Greek Catholic.  He does say there is some attraction for some people to ultra-traditionalism.  Given the wide variety of Christianity today and even non-Christian religions people adhere to, there is attraction to almost anything.  They will have their niche market.  They might even gather together the various sedevacantist groups and form a unified group.  Although I don't know how that would work out, they're not really known for obedience to bishops

The bizarre cult-like behavior of the williamites is the very thing that will cause them to become irrelevant.

True, but they will remain annoying for some time before they disappear into obscurity.  I wonder though how many of their followers are actually leaning towards Williamson than Fellay.  If only Williamson's views aren't bordering lunacy, it would actually be admirable for someone to stick to their guns and say, "you've abandonned Tradition and we won't reunite until you return to it."

I've spent some time on a particular traditionalist Catholic website. To be honest, I think these people are more concerned with belonging to "Peter" or "Paul" than they are with Christ. Otherwise, they would return to full communion with Holy Mother Church. I think one of the Church Fathers said that If one does not have the Church as his mother, he cannot have God as his Father.

 

[Apotheoun]

The Society of St Pius X has confirmed that it has expelled the English Bishop Richard Williamson.

Bishop Williamson, 72, one of four men illicitly ordained in 1988 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in Écône, Switzerland, has been a controversial figure, particularly for his views on Jews, who he has called the “enemies of Christ”.

Hallelujah.

I hope this will reboot negotiations with the Vatican.

I don't think that Bishop Williamson is the reason for the failed negotiations.  In fact, it sounds like he hasn't really been "in the loop" at the SSPX for a while.  I think the real sticking point between the SSPX and the Roman bureaucracy continues to be the place of Vatican II in Roman Catholic teaching.

At one point throughout the negotiations, Bp. Fellay was starting to sound very positive about normalization of relations with Rome. Suddenly, the ultra-anti-VII crowd started moaning and groaning, and Bp. Fellay reversed his position. We know that Bp. Williamson is the most vocal proponent of the ultra-anti-VII idea and I would have a hard time believing that he didn't influence the reversal of position on the part of Bp. Fellay.

That is one way of looking at it, but I think you are giving too much importance to Bishop Williamson.  I think the "anti-Vatican II" crowd is still alive and well in the SSPX, and I think Bishop Fellay, as sympathetic as he is to reuniting with Rome, ultimately decided in favor of that group.  I think Vatican II remains the main sticking point between Rome and the SSPX and I do not see that changing any time soon.  In fact, some recent comments from Pope Benedict in support of Vatican II make it seem unlikely that communion will be restored between Rome and the SSPX in the foreseeable future.

 

[Apotheoun]

Postscript to my previous comment:  Bishop Williamson cannot be all that powerful, or he really could not have been ousted. 

 

[choy]

I've spent some time on a particular traditionalist Catholic website. To be honest, I think these people are more concerned with belonging to "Peter" or "Paul" than they are with Christ. Otherwise, they would return to full communion with Holy Mother Church. I think one of the Church Fathers said that If one does not have the Church as his mother, he cannot have God as his Father.

But there is the question about true teaching.  If they truly believe that Rome has erred in her teaching, then they should stand up for the Truth.  But like I said, Williamson has proven what kind of tree he is with the fruits that have come from him.

To be honest, when RCs now say that they believe in something because the Church says so, to me that sounds like cultish mentality.  I know a few cults that are like that, "our leaders said the Bible reads this way so therefore it is the truth."  I think it is dangerous because you put so much into the hands of one man.

 

[Apotheoun]

It is probably pretty clear - based on my posts on theological topics - that I am not a big fan of the SSPX, but I will say this:  I do not doubt that those faithful to the SSPX are - in most cases - acting from good intentions, and see themselves as defenders of the Latin Church's tradition.

 

[choy]

It is probably pretty clear - based on my posts on theological topics - that I am not a big fan of the SSPX, but I will say this:  I do not doubt that those faithful to the SSPX are - in most cases - acting from good intentions, and see themselves as defenders of the Latin Church's tradition.

Defending it from who though?  The Post Vatican II Popes?  Because that is the Latin Tradition, complete submission and adherance to the decrees of the Pope.  So it is kind of an oxymoron to rebel against the Pope and yet profess the Latin faith.

 

[Apotheoun]

Defending it from who though?

The majority of people in the SSPX would probably say from the innovations of the modern Roman Church.

The Post Vatican II Popes?

I would say that to answer that question in the affirmative probably represents the viewpoint of the majority of people in the SSPX.

Because that is the Latin Tradition, complete submission and adherance to the decrees of the Pope.

That is one way of reading the Latin tradition, but it is not the only way of doing so, as the SSPX - by their refusal to assent to the innovations promoted at Vatican II - have demonstrated.

So it is kind of an oxymoron to rebel against the Pope and yet profess the Latin faith.

That is a modern interpretation of the situation.  But blind obedience has never been extolled as a virtue in the Roman Church.

Blind Obedience?

 

[choy]

Defending it from who though?

The majority of people in the SSPX would probably say from the innovations of the modern Roman Church.

The Post Vatican II Popes?

I would say that to answer that question in the affirmative probably represents the viewpoint of the majority of people in the SSPX.

Because that is the Latin Tradition, complete submission and adherance to the decrees of the Pope.

That is one way of reading the Latin tradition, but it is not the only way of doing so, as the SSPX - by their refusal to assent to the innovations promoted at Vatican II - have demonstrated.

So it is kind of an oxymoron to rebel against the Pope and yet profess the Latin faith.

That is a modern interpretation of the situation.  But blind obedience has never been extolled as a virtue in the Roman Church.

Blind Obedience?

Blind obedience seems to be espoused by may RCs today, whether it is actual Church teaching or not.  One reason I'm leaning heavily towards Orthodoxy is that many would not even want to know what the Church believed in the past, but just follow what the Magisterium teaches today because they should know.

Another problem with the SSPX is, who do they appeal to? Every Pope since Vatican II has not been on their side.  Pope Benedict is the closest and yet they still couldn't be regularized with him.  Given that Latin belief is the Pope is the highest authority on earth, there is no hope for appeal.  No council, no Emperor, no nothing.  Which is even the clause for a Pope vacating a seat by virtue of heresy does not seem plausible.  Who will declare a Pope a heretic?  A council can't.  Only a Pope can declare a Pope a heretic.  So you are hoping the next Pope's aren't "in" on the heresy of the pervious one for that to happen.  And given that the beatification for Pope Paul VI is moving along positively (not that I am suggesting that it shouldn't or that I think he is a heretic, I do not), this is an even dimmer prospect for the sedes in their case.

 

[Apotheoun]

Defending it from who though?

The majority of people in the SSPX would probably say from the innovations of the modern Roman Church.

The Post Vatican II Popes?

I would say that to answer that question in the affirmative probably represents the viewpoint of the majority of people in the SSPX.

Because that is the Latin Tradition, complete submission and adherance to the decrees of the Pope.

That is one way of reading the Latin tradition, but it is not the only way of doing so, as the SSPX - by their refusal to assent to the innovations promoted at Vatican II - have demonstrated.

So it is kind of an oxymoron to rebel against the Pope and yet profess the Latin faith.

That is a modern interpretation of the situation.  But blind obedience has never been extolled as a virtue in the Roman Church.

Blind Obedience?

Blind obedience seems to be espoused by may RCs today, whether it is actual Church teaching or not.  One reason I'm leaning heavily towards Orthodoxy is that many would not even want to know what the Church believed in the past, but just follow what the Magisterium teaches today because they should know.

Another problem with the SSPX is, who do they appeal to? Every Pope since Vatican II has not been on their side.  Pope Benedict is the closest and yet they still couldn't be regularized with him.  Given that Latin belief is the Pope is the highest authority on earth, there is no hope for appeal.  No council, no Emperor, no nothing.  Which is even the clause for a Pope vacating a seat by virtue of heresy does not seem plausible.  Who will declare a Pope a heretic?  A council can't.  Only a Pope can declare a Pope a heretic.  So you are hoping the next Pope's aren't "in" on the heresy of the pervious one for that to happen.  And given that the beatification for Pope Paul VI is moving along positively (not that I am suggesting that it shouldn't or that I think he is a heretic, I do not), this is an even dimmer prospect for the sedes in their case.

Even though I am not an SSPXer I will try to answer your question in a manner consistent with their view of things:  Thus, who does the SSPX appeal to?  They appeal to no particular individual, save perhaps Christ alone; instead, they appeal to Tradition, that is, to the Apostolic Teaching as handed down in the Church, and not merely by the bishops, but by all approved Catholic theologians, and those who have been faithful to what has been held at all times, in all places, and by all, as firmly to be believed.

 

[choy]

Even though I am not an SSPXer I will try to answer your question in a manner consistent with their view of things:  Thus, who does the SSPX appeal to?  They appeal to no particular individual, save perhaps Christ alone; instead, they appeal to Tradition, that is, to the Apostolic Teaching as handed down in the Church, and not merely by the bishops, but by all approved Catholic theologians, and those who have been faithful to what has been held at all times, in all places, and by all, as firmly to be believed.

If they think Tradition > Pope, then doesn't this make them Orthodox in a sense?  Though I shudder to think if they would come into communion with the Orthodox as is.  I believe there is a lot of pride among them and their current "spirituality" (if you can call it that) is poisonous.  I certainly didn't feel it was helpful to me given my very brief exploration of Traditional Catholicism.

 

[Apotheoun]

Even though I am not an SSPXer I will try to answer your question in a manner consistent with their view of things:  Thus, who does the SSPX appeal to?  They appeal to no particular individual, save perhaps Christ alone; instead, they appeal to Tradition, that is, to the Apostolic Teaching as handed down in the Church, and not merely by the bishops, but by all approved Catholic theologians, and those who have been faithful to what has been held at all times, in all places, and by all, as firmly to be believed.

If they think Tradition > Pope, then doesn't this make them Orthodox in a sense?  Though I shudder to think if they would come into communion with the Orthodox as is.  I believe there is a lot of pride among them and their current "spirituality" (if you can call it that) is poisonous.  I certainly didn't feel it was helpful to me given my very brief exploration of Traditional Catholicism.

No, not really.  Even Vatican II, which the SSPXers don't like, says that the Magisterium is not above the word of God.  The hierarchs are not the source of Tradition, but are merely it guardians, and even their function as guardians is not something they possess in isolation, because the faithful are also called upon to protect the gift of divine revelation given to the Church.

 

[choy]

Even though I am not an SSPXer I will try to answer your question in a manner consistent with their view of things:  Thus, who does the SSPX appeal to?  They appeal to no particular individual, save perhaps Christ alone; instead, they appeal to Tradition, that is, to the Apostolic Teaching as handed down in the Church, and not merely by the bishops, but by all approved Catholic theologians, and those who have been faithful to what has been held at all times, in all places, and by all, as firmly to be believed.

If they think Tradition > Pope, then doesn't this make them Orthodox in a sense?  Though I shudder to think if they would come into communion with the Orthodox as is.  I believe there is a lot of pride among them and their current "spirituality" (if you can call it that) is poisonous.  I certainly didn't feel it was helpful to me given my very brief exploration of Traditional Catholicism.

No, not really.  Even Vatican II, which the SSPXers don't like, says that the Magisterium is not above the word of God.  The hierarchs are not the source of Tradition, but are merely it guardians, and even their function as guardians is not something they possess in isolation, because the faithful are also called upon to protect the gift of divine revelation given to the Church.

But the caveat is that the Pope is the supreme interpreter of everything.  So if the SSPX says Tradition says "A" and the Pope says same Tradition says "B", therefore it is "B" in the RC.

 

[Apotheoun]

Even though I am not an SSPXer I will try to answer your question in a manner consistent with their view of things:  Thus, who does the SSPX appeal to?  They appeal to no particular individual, save perhaps Christ alone; instead, they appeal to Tradition, that is, to the Apostolic Teaching as handed down in the Church, and not merely by the bishops, but by all approved Catholic theologians, and those who have been faithful to what has been held at all times, in all places, and by all, as firmly to be believed.

If they think Tradition > Pope, then doesn't this make them Orthodox in a sense?  Though I shudder to think if they would come into communion with the Orthodox as is.  I believe there is a lot of pride among them and their current "spirituality" (if you can call it that) is poisonous.  I certainly didn't feel it was helpful to me given my very brief exploration of Traditional Catholicism.

No, not really.  Even Vatican II, which the SSPXers don't like, says that the Magisterium is not above the word of God.  The hierarchs are not the source of Tradition, but are merely it guardians, and even their function as guardians is not something they possess in isolation, because the faithful are also called upon to protect the gift of divine revelation given to the Church.

But the caveat is that the Pope is the supreme interpreter of everything.  So if the SSPX says Tradition says "A" and the Pope says same Tradition says "B", therefore it is "B" in the RC.

That is the point at issue between the SSPX and the Vatican IIers.  The SSPX say that the "interpretations" given since the close of the council are not "interpretations," but are instead corruptions of the original divine deposit.  I guess it all boils down to a matter of perspective.

 

[Apotheoun]

One other thing should be said:  The members of the SSPX are well within their rights as Catholics to say that simply because a pope says something it does not follow that what he said is true or binding, that is, unless you want to argue that anything and everything a pope says is by definition de fide, and even the modern Roman Church doesn't say that.  Many Roman Catholics may act like that is the case, but the teaching of the modern Roman Church does not affirm that to be true.

 

[choy]

That is the point at issue between the SSPX and the Vatican IIers.  The SSPX say that the "interpretations" given since the close of the council are not "interpretations," but are instead corruptions of the original divine deposit.  I guess it all boils down to a matter of perspective.

And the problem with lack of true conciliarity, who will decide?  It's always the Pope's word against their.  Even if they are right, how can they prove that they are?

 

[biro]

That is the point at issue between the SSPX and the Vatican IIers.  The SSPX say that the "interpretations" given since the close of the council are not "interpretations," but are instead corruptions of the original divine deposit.  I guess it all boils down to a matter of perspective.

And the problem with lack of true conciliarity, who will decide?  It's always the Pope's word against their.  Even if they are right, how can they prove that they are?

Some people seem to have such a crush on the Pope, they can't stop writing about him, and the magic powers he supposedly has. Why, just yesterday, he called me up and told me to punch a random person in the face. And yet, I did not.

 

[Apotheoun]

That is the point at issue between the SSPX and the Vatican IIers.  The SSPX say that the "interpretations" given since the close of the council are not "interpretations," but are instead corruptions of the original divine deposit.  I guess it all boils down to a matter of perspective.

And the problem with lack of true conciliarity, who will decide?  It's always the Pope's word against their.  Even if they are right, how can they prove that they are?

We are not dealing with something that can be determined by created reason alone, and so faith comes in, and if the person has "faith" that tells him the pope is right on Vatican II he will no doubt remain in communion with the pope, but if he lacks that particular "faith" and holds that the popes have fallen into error on specific theological points he will likely attach himself to the SSPX or some other group.

My point in saying this is not to support the SSPX, which I really have no interest in, but is simply to point out that the SSPX position can be reasonably defended.  Or to put it another way, my point is to simply affirm that SSPXers are not irrational or crazy (although some individuals may be, but that is probably true of some of the members of every Church and religion).

 

[choy]

That is the point at issue between the SSPX and the Vatican IIers.  The SSPX say that the "interpretations" given since the close of the council are not "interpretations," but are instead corruptions of the original divine deposit.  I guess it all boils down to a matter of perspective.

And the problem with lack of true conciliarity, who will decide?  It's always the Pope's word against their.  Even if they are right, how can they prove that they are?

We are not dealing with something that can be determined by created reason alone, and so faith comes in, and if the person has "faith" that tells him the pope is right on Vatican II he will no doubt remain in communion with the pope, but if he lacks that particular "faith" and holds that the popes have fallen into error on specific theological points he will likely attach himself to the SSPX or some other group.

My point in saying this is not to support the SSPX, which I really have no interest in, but is simply to point out that the SSPX position can be reasonably defended.  Or to put it another way, my point is to simply affirm that SSPXers are not irrational or crazy (although some individuals may be, but that is probably true of some of the members of every Church and religion).

I understand what you are saying.  I just don't think the RC works that way today.

 

[Apotheoun]

That is the point at issue between the SSPX and the Vatican IIers.  The SSPX say that the "interpretations" given since the close of the council are not "interpretations," but are instead corruptions of the original divine deposit.  I guess it all boils down to a matter of perspective.

And the problem with lack of true conciliarity, who will decide?  It's always the Pope's word against their.  Even if they are right, how can they prove that they are?

We are not dealing with something that can be determined by created reason alone, and so faith comes in, and if the person has "faith" that tells him the pope is right on Vatican II he will no doubt remain in communion with the pope, but if he lacks that particular "faith" and holds that the popes have fallen into error on specific theological points he will likely attach himself to the SSPX or some other group.

My point in saying this is not to support the SSPX, which I really have no interest in, but is simply to point out that the SSPX position can be reasonably defended.  Or to put it another way, my point is to simply affirm that SSPXers are not irrational or crazy (although some individuals may be, but that is probably true of some of the members of every Church and religion).

I understand what you are saying.  I just don't think the RC works that way today.

I agree that a lot of Roman Catholics have an exaggerated sense of the importance of the pope, and sometimes sound as if - and maybe even believe that - the pope can declare anything to be a part of the faith, but that viewpoint is a novelty.  The pope is not the source of tradition in the Roman Church, and so he cannot simply change it willy-nilly.  Alas some of the confusion in the modern Roman Church is a consequence of the decision by Pope Paul VI to arbitrarily change the historic Roman liturgy by establishing a committee to re-create and modernize it. 

 

[choy]

That is the point at issue between the SSPX and the Vatican IIers.  The SSPX say that the "interpretations" given since the close of the council are not "interpretations," but are instead corruptions of the original divine deposit.  I guess it all boils down to a matter of perspective.

And the problem with lack of true conciliarity, who will decide?  It's always the Pope's word against their.  Even if they are right, how can they prove that they are?

We are not dealing with something that can be determined by created reason alone, and so faith comes in, and if the person has "faith" that tells him the pope is right on Vatican II he will no doubt remain in communion with the pope, but if he lacks that particular "faith" and holds that the popes have fallen into error on specific theological points he will likely attach himself to the SSPX or some other group.

My point in saying this is not to support the SSPX, which I really have no interest in, but is simply to point out that the SSPX position can be reasonably defended.  Or to put it another way, my point is to simply affirm that SSPXers are not irrational or crazy (although some individuals may be, but that is probably true of some of the members of every Church and religion).

I understand what you are saying.  I just don't think the RC works that way today.

I agree that a lot of Roman Catholics have an exaggerated sense of the importance of the pope, and sometimes sound as if - and maybe even believe that - the pope can declare anything to be a part of the faith, but that viewpoint is a novelty.  The pope is not the source of tradition in the Roman Church, and so he cannot simply change it willy-nilly.  Alas some of the confusion in the modern Roman Church is a consequence of the decision by Pope Paul VI to arbitrarily change the historic Roman liturgy by establishing a committee to re-create and modernize it. 

But Popes have proven to work unilaterally.  Motu Proprios are just that, things by his own initiative.  Pope Benedict XVI's Motu Proprio for the Latin Mass was passed unilaterally, and no diocesan RC bishop can do anything about it.  In fact, if they don't comply, the laity has a right to appeal to Rome.

 

[Apotheoun]

That is the point at issue between the SSPX and the Vatican IIers.  The SSPX say that the "interpretations" given since the close of the council are not "interpretations," but are instead corruptions of the original divine deposit.  I guess it all boils down to a matter of perspective.

And the problem with lack of true conciliarity, who will decide?  It's always the Pope's word against their.  Even if they are right, how can they prove that they are?

We are not dealing with something that can be determined by created reason alone, and so faith comes in, and if the person has "faith" that tells him the pope is right on Vatican II he will no doubt remain in communion with the pope, but if he lacks that particular "faith" and holds that the popes have fallen into error on specific theological points he will likely attach himself to the SSPX or some other group.

My point in saying this is not to support the SSPX, which I really have no interest in, but is simply to point out that the SSPX position can be reasonably defended.  Or to put it another way, my point is to simply affirm that SSPXers are not irrational or crazy (although some individuals may be, but that is probably true of some of the members of every Church and religion).

I understand what you are saying.  I just don't think the RC works that way today.

I agree that a lot of Roman Catholics have an exaggerated sense of the importance of the pope, and sometimes sound as if - and maybe even believe that - the pope can declare anything to be a part of the faith, but that viewpoint is a novelty.  The pope is not the source of tradition in the Roman Church, and so he cannot simply change it willy-nilly.  Alas some of the confusion in the modern Roman Church is a consequence of the decision by Pope Paul VI to arbitrarily change the historic Roman liturgy by establishing a committee to re-create and modernize it. 

But Popes have proven to work unilaterally.  Motu Proprios are just that, things by his own initiative.  Pope Benedict XVI's Motu Proprio for the Latin Mass was passed unilaterally, and no diocesan RC bishop can do anything about it.  In fact, if they don't comply, the laity has a right to appeal to Rome.

I know that they have issued documents on their own authority, but Pope Paul VI went a bit further when he threw out the Roman Church's historic liturgy and created a new liturgy by committee.

 

[choy]

I know that they have issued documents on their own authority, but Pope Paul VI went a bit further when he threw out the Roman Church's historic liturgy and created a new liturgy by committee.

Yup, I'm just saying that those who say that the Pope can do anything according to his whim is not just a bunch of paranoid freaks.  He has the authority to do it.  I for one do not agree with Summorum Pontificum.  Not that I do not want our Traddie brethren to have Latin Mass, but rather it takes away the authority of Bishops over their own diocese.

 

[Apotheoun]

I know that they have issued documents on their own authority, but Pope Paul VI went a bit further when he threw out the Roman Church's historic liturgy and created a new liturgy by committee.

Yup, I'm just saying that those who say that the Pope can do anything according to his whim is not just a bunch of paranoid freaks.  He has the authority to do it.  I for one do not agree with Summorum Pontificum.  Not that I do not want our Traddie brethren to have Latin Mass, but rather it takes away the authority of Bishops over their own diocese.

Yes, I get your point.  Although I would move things one step further back, because I do not believe that Pope Paul VI had the authority to dump and then recreate the Roman Church's liturgy, and if he had never done what he did, Pope Benedict would not have issued Summorum Pontificum. 

 

[choy]

Yes, I get your point.  Although I would move things one step further back, because I do not believe that Pope Paul VI had the authority to dump and then recreate the Roman Church's liturgy, and if he had never done what he did, Pope Benedict would not have issued Summorum Pontificum. 

Wasn't it the Melkite Patriarch who encouraged Rome to drop the exclusive use of Latin

 

[Apotheoun]

Yes, I get your point.  Although I would move things one step further back, because I do not believe that Pope Paul VI had the authority to dump and then recreate the Roman Church's liturgy, and if he had never done what he did, Pope Benedict would not have issued Summorum Pontificum. 

Wasn't it the Melkite Patriarch who encouraged Rome to drop the exclusive use of Latin

I do not know if he suggested that or not, but the language of the liturgy is really unimportant to me.  What I am concerned about is not the use of Latin or the vernacular, but the wholesale dumping of the Roman Church's liturgical tradition and its replacement with a new liturgy created by a committee (i.e., the Consilium).

 

[PJ]

The Society of St Pius X has confirmed that it has expelled the English Bishop Richard Williamson.

Whoa.

 

[PJ]

Defending it from who though?  The Post Vatican II Popes?  Because that is the Latin Tradition, complete submission and adherance to the decrees of the Pope.  So it is kind of an oxymoron to rebel against the Pope and yet profess the Latin faith.

I would say that's a Latin tradition, not "the Latin tradition".

 

[PJ]

If they think Tradition > Pope, then doesn't this make them Orthodox in a sense? 

No, it doesn't make them Orthodox ... if anything, we could perhaps conclude that they are even more "old school" Catholic than typically thought (i.e. not just "pre-VaticanII" but even "pre-VaticanI").

Then again, I think they might object to their position being described as "Tradition > Pope".

 

[choy]

Defending it from who though?  The Post Vatican II Popes?  Because that is the Latin Tradition, complete submission and adherance to the decrees of the Pope.  So it is kind of an oxymoron to rebel against the Pope and yet profess the Latin faith.

I would say that's a Latin tradition, not "the Latin tradition".

Well, it is THE tradition since Vatican I.

 

[choy]

If they think Tradition > Pope, then doesn't this make them Orthodox in a sense? 

No, it doesn't make them Orthodox ... if anything, we could perhaps conclude that they are even more "old school" Catholic than typically thought (i.e. not just "pre-VaticanII" but even "pre-VaticanI").

Then again, I think they might object to their position being described as "Tradition > Pope".

But RCs are very Pope-centric.  It seems that if there is any issue between tradition and the Pope, they instantly take the side of the Pope and say, "well, he should know better."