I don’t think you need to be too worried DSeied. I don’t think this was addressing relations with other religions, but rather things like the Liturgy and other doctrines. There are some Catholics out there who seem to think Vatican II threw out all the doctrines and teaching before it or at least pretend they do to further their agenda. Some seem determined to turn us into a kind of Unitarian Universalists and need to be reminded that this is not going to happen.
(Whoops I forgot to add this. Yay for edit!) I’ll also agree with mswas. The internet thing rings pretty true to me. I’m sure the Pope knows it exists, but it does not surprise me that Vatican officials would not think to use it for information. Heck my own parents don’t even use it that way and they were around my brother and I who did.
Well what people think will be open for discussion and what will be open for discussion may or may not be the same thing. It is often important to note what is not said when the opportunity to say it was clearly there. He did not say that only liturgical issues were open for discussion; he did not take the chance to reassure those who he knows are so concerned that those aspects of V2 that have to do with the Church’s relations to others (including but not restricted to Jews) are off the table. If they were he would have mentioned that, given the context of the letter’s subject, don’t you think?
As to the internet. Oh, I understand that he does not know much about these intertubie things … that’s not why the excuse was lame. The excuse was lame because anyone with any knowledge of the St. Pius group knew that discomfort with V2’s reorientation to “others” was part of their problem with the Council and some of his own top advisors were upset that they were not consulted as they clearly knew what Williamson was currently doing and saying and how this would be seen. He didn’t need to use a computer; he just needed to think about it for a second and/or to consult his own top people. But again, I am not posting to complain right now. He is recognizing that he messed up, lame excuses or not, and expressing regret over that. I believe his true intent is to foster better relations with others and that he will be reluctant to cede much to the St. Pius group in terms of the tenor of those relationships. But he does want to get them fully within the fold again and is willing to cede doctrinally some to get them there. With that letter I now have that belief in his intent but not so much faith that my belief is correct or that such an intent will outweigh his desire to get this group fully rehabilitated. Time will tell.
DSeid I think what he meant was that he could have responded more promptly to the problems if he’d known about the intarweb. At least that’s how I read it.
It’s funny I wonder how many younger priests were sitting around thinking, “If only I could tell the Pope what’s being said on the internet.”, but were too intimidated by the upward bureaucracy to get the message sent up the chain. Oh, I know the feeling of that. You don’t want to correct the old man in the position of authority, but you oh so want to.
DSeid, I would be shocked if there are doctrinal concessions towards SSPX. When it comes to doctrine the Church tends to expect everyone else to change their mind rather then she changing hers. There is a bit of tendency towards… stubbornness.
Also I think you, though no fault of your own, missed an important thing:
The bolding is mine and supports my point. The Pope wants them to accept Vatican II and the authority of the Popes after the council. Any doctrinal concessions will be on the side of SSPX.
Also there is this paragraph. Bolding mine again. Though some of the sentences seem…odd. I suspect their could be something amiss in the translation, but I can only find this one version so I can’t confirm that. This seems to say that the Pope intends to continue interreligious dialogue.
Now I no you weren’t posting to criticize, but I just wanted to reassure you that those who hold extremist views are highly unlikely to gain any ground.
I think that Caveat has got a really good point here. The issue they are having is a threat to Papal authority on doctrinal matters, and that will not be humored without very good reason. Vatican II was a big deal, and while certain small concessions are made so as not to cause a revolt, I seriously doubt they are going to roll back the overall philosophy of it.
I just see it as posturing for negotiating purposes. I ascribe zero significance to it.
They are 40 years on into this negotiation and this is all they have? One side saying publicly the other side must submit, while the other side knows it has growing numbers and time is on its side, plus both sides know real negotiations happen behind the scenes, not in the press?
Make no mistake about it, this is a negotiation, and if the Pope’s goal is as stated, to bring people back in the fold and avoid a permanent schism, then he will need to make some doctrinal concessions, or it is he who will be looking at failure, not SSPX. SSPX obviously knows this and can afford to be patient.
Also, the outside world knows better then to accept the public posturing of one side in a negotiation as the Gospel Truth, no pun intended.
So, then it is fair to look at SSPX’s ideas for anti-ecumenism (as in the inter-religious type) for what they might push hardest for concessions on.
Mean time, if lay Catholics are not clear on if excommunication is a punishment or a state of mind arising of one’s own free will, how clear is any doctrine to anyone? Maybe even Microsoft can take lessons in FUD from the Pope, and that is saying something indeed.
The sspx guys don’t have numbers on their side…they are a tiny minority of Catholics. I don’t see this as being any kind of legitimate threat to the Church, and I’m sure the Pope doesn’t, either.
In regards to what excommunication is, I think it can legitimately be considered both a punishment AND a state of mind arising of one’s own free will. If a person is outside the Church, but not officially recoginzed as excommunicated, they still can partake in the sacraments, even though technically they shouldn’t. So I can see how denying the sacraments could be considered punishment, and in retrospect, it wasn’t right to claim that it’s not. But, that doesn’t contradict the idea that a person’s own actions are what put them outside the community of the faithful.
By the message posted earlier, and probably tons more, the worst thing in his mind is a permanent schism because it is a threat to his authority.
There have been earlier schisms and one of the Pope’s main priorities is to repair those after what, a zillion years? A new group holding out weakens his position in those negotiations, no matter the number. This is Negotations 101.
The Pope’s position seems to be that even one false Bishop is a threat to his authority, and if the Bishop (and hos organization) has followers, then that is worse.
As for numbers, aren’t they on the order of 100K worldwide? That is not a trivial amount of people meeting a coffee shop to diss the Pope. It is 3 times the size of my town, and that is plenty to get things done and be noticed.
Otherwise the Pope would have wished them well on their spiritual voyage 40 years ago and been done with it.
Yeah, so now that the Pope knows about this Internet thingie, how long do you predict it will be before the Vatican has a web page, in plain words, in English and probably hundreds of other languages, that is an FAQ on what excommunication is and is not?
If the Catholic Church were inclined to make doctrinal concessions, especially those concerning Papal authority, we’d have solved the schism with the Orthodox Churches long long ago. If we won’t do it for them why would we do it for a little splinter group (and yes in the Church 100,000 is little) like SSPX. Also 40 years in nothing. We’ve been talking with the Orthodox a lot longer than that.
The Church is not in the habit of ceding ground to schismatics. We didn’t do it for the Orthodox or Henry VIII. Why would we do it for Lefebvre’s group?
Also I don’t think they have time or numbers on their side. They don’t really get a lot of sympathy or support amongst most Catholics.
“We” - are you involved with the negotiations, or are you just a bystander like the rest of us? If the former, do tell! If the latter, saying “we” makes the Church and its followers sound like a sports team and its fans. I somehow don’t think that is the Church’s intent or purpose.
Except actions belie your words - as large as the Church is, it does profess to minister to individuals, right?
And if it didn’t matter, then why hasn’t each Pope simply dismissed the matter, said “we don’t care, good luck and god speed” to SSPX? How easy is that to do if that is your position, and how hard is it to do if it is not your position?
“The Church is not in the habit of ceding ground to schismatics. We didn’t do it for the Orthodox or Henry VIII. Why would we do it for Lefebvre’s group?”
Exactly. The Church is actively trying to pull those groups back in the fold, and from what I have read, enjoying at least some diplomatic movement recently. The SSPX debacle threatens those efforts.
I’d venture to say most Catholics have never heard of them.
Yet, the issue in this thread is not what most Catholics think, but what they represent and expose about Catholics to the rest of the world. And is isn’t pretty. Clearly the Pope would rather pull them back in the fold, ostensibly for doctrinal reasons, then clearly say there is no room in the Church for anyone espousing such veiled or hateful positions in the name of the Church.
I am a part of the Church. What should I say? They? Like I’m separate from the Church? But this is just semantics and doesn’t really matter.
Because the Pope does want them to be part of the fold. He isn’t going to say, “Goodbye and don’t let the door hit you on the way out.” However, this does not mean that we should expect the Church to be the one compromising.
How does SSPX threaten this efforts? Because they say they won’t listen? I really doubt that the Orthodox are going to factor SSPX into their considerations towards unity.
You can’t change someone’s mind about things if your busy telling them to go screw themselves. Now sometimes a punishment can make people reconsider their position and sometimes it takes mercy. We are never going to change people who hold “veiled or hateful positions” if we keep up with a punishment that is not working. To hate is sinful and what better place for the sinners than the Church? There we can work to change them. Keep in mind they still cannot validly practice their orders so their is still punishment.
not alice, I agree with much of what you say, in substance if not in tone, yet …
Yes, the issue is not what most Catholics believe. Most Catholics, including well informed ones, are not aware that this is about more than one valid but illegitimate Bishop forgiven despite his hate speech. If they are aware of the St. Pius issues at all they think it is about having a more traditional liturgy. There is wide spread ignorance that the big deal, to the Pope, to the St. Pius group, and to many concerned outsiders, is over doctrinal issues in how the Church positions herself in relation to the rest of the world and how important those issues really are both for the Church and to us “others” over the long haul of history.
But the Pope has indeed expressed the desire to maintain and grow the positive and respectful orientation to others that V2 articulated as part of being part of this world made up of many religions that have no choice but to exist together. He has made it as clear as I think he can that he has no intent to cede on those issues. If there is a subtext at all I would read it as his being damn pissed off at the St. Pius group and less likely than ever to cede another inch. From his POV he tried to deal with them by turning the other cheek and they slapped it by declaring victory and by a non-apology when recanting was demanded. He may want them back in but not at the cost of humiliation.
I see no reason not to believe him at this point. And the net effect of this debacle is that he has learned (to his surprise I guess) what a minefield this is, both to “others” and within the Church. His obvious discomfort over this, the fact that he’s had to come out and admit that he screwed up some (a Pope admitting that!?), will inform his future actions regarding this group. Ceding on these issues some may have been possible before the Williamson affair but it has now become something that I believe he won’t touch.
Really? how does your opinion get represented in the hierarchy? I thought the whole point of the Vatican, esp. as SSPX would like to see it, is that it extend even further its already entirely one way communication with the outside world. Really, how exactly does one communicate with the Pope, Catholic or not?
Well, either there is a compromise or a schism. Still working on Negotiation 101, unblinded by faith here…if you know other outcomes, please elaborate.
Still, Negotiation 101 or maybe 102 this time. 3rd Parties see your weaknesses in other negotiations and negotiate accordingly.
But you can move on without them. come one, still worried about what Henry the 8th did? time to move on, and stop pretending the Church since then has not been whole or able to operate without the Anglicans ever since. It lessens the value of the Church of the current members and believers to say otherwise IMHO.
It is pretty presumptuous to say that people who no longer believe in all the Canons of your Church must be punished until they see the error of their ways. This is where outsiders such as Jews pick stuff up on the radar, as such punishment has historically been turned on them, even though they have never been believers in any way shape or form.
How about where ever they want to be by themselves?
Are you positing that it is Church doctrine that only they can change one’s hateful thoughts, and that all haters are better off in the Church then elsewhere?
If so, what does the Church do with all the haters it accumulates in the mean time before they are reformed (as if…?)
Sure, but he and the next 1000 years worth of those that follow him will never acknowledge a schism either, meaning it still recognizes the hateful group as part of its own.
Meantime the group collects its own adherents, because, well, it is well aware of word-of-mouth marketing, including via the internet. it is more nimble, so eventually it wins.
See the conundrum?
The Pope can stick to his guns or spin or both as much as he likes, but by doing so, he is doing nothing to separate himself and the Church from the hate.
Let the group go, and if and when they want back in, let them ask nicely. No need for carrots or sticks, just let them go be hateful on their own, and let them dig their own figurative graves if that is what they want to do. I really see no reason for the Pope to not take the high road here at all.
Yes, but we would prefer to move on with them having brought them back into the fold. It is the same thing with the Anglicans.
Where did I say people should be punished if they do not follow the Church’s teachings? You are completely misunderstanding the situation. SSPX is a group that claims to have authority within the Church and still be part of the Church yet teaches things not in agreement with the Church. They are schismatic. It is completely different from anything to do with Jews, Muslims, or even non-Catholic Christians. If a member of an organization does something related to that organization that displeases it there are often consequences. If a member of the Bar Association commits malpractice of some kind they will likely be suspended at best. No one thinks the Bar is going to start coming after Joe Schmoe for misquoting the law.
Heck if SSPX really wanted to be separate they wouldn’t care about excommunication and would go on their merry way. Its only because they do want some part in the Church that that matters.
Where did I say that this was the only way this could be accomplished? Also unless I say something is Church doctrine please don’t take my opinions as expressing doctrine. Personally I think the Church is the best place for any kind of sinner. In fact if we kicked every sinner out of the Church there wouldn’t be anyone left. Now sometimes excommunication is sadly necessary for those who are in such a position that a point needs to be made that what they are doing is wrong, but this is a fairly extreme thing.
As to what the Church should do with haters within the Church, it should try and reform and perfect them as it does with all its members. I’ve seen someone who, through their association with the Church, turn from a bigot to someone who argues and corrects bigots. Now they could have been excluded and they’d still be a bigot as only at church and related functions was their bigotry challenged. Now if they’d been somehow leading others astray they might have been excluded, but that would not be the best thing and should be avoided if possible.
