SSPX expels Bishop Williamson

Apotheoun

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
1,462
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Northern California
Website
sites.google.com
choy said:
Apotheoun said:
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

Archon
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
2,316
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Apotheoun said:
choy said:
Apotheoun said:
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

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
1,462
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Northern California
Website
sites.google.com
choy said:
Apotheoun said:
choy said:
Apotheoun said:
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

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
1,462
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Northern California
Website
sites.google.com
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

Archon
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
2,316
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Apotheoun said:
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

Protostrator
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
23,168
Reaction score
9
Points
38
Age
47
Website
archiveofourown.org
choy said:
Apotheoun said:
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

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
1,462
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Northern California
Website
sites.google.com
choy said:
Apotheoun said:
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

Archon
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
2,316
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Apotheoun said:
choy said:
Apotheoun said:
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

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
1,462
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Northern California
Website
sites.google.com
choy said:
Apotheoun said:
choy said:
Apotheoun said:
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

Archon
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
2,316
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Apotheoun said:
choy said:
Apotheoun said:
choy said:
Apotheoun said:
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

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
1,462
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Northern California
Website
sites.google.com
choy said:
Apotheoun said:
choy said:
Apotheoun said:
choy said:
Apotheoun said:
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

Archon
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
2,316
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Apotheoun said:
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

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
1,462
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Northern California
Website
sites.google.com
choy said:
Apotheoun said:
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:D
 

choy

Archon
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
2,316
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Apotheoun said:
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:D
Wasn't it the Melkite Patriarch who encouraged Rome to drop the exclusive use of Latin ;)
 

Apotheoun

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
1,462
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Northern California
Website
sites.google.com
choy said:
Apotheoun said:
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:D
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

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
choy said:
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

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
choy said:
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

Archon
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
2,316
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Peter J said:
choy said:
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

Archon
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
2,316
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Peter J said:
choy said:
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."
 
Top