<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.5726" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Hi</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Diversity and looking the other way - diversity is
fine if the language or traditions differ but the underlying doctrine is the
same. Even if the language differs so radically that it takes a team of
theologians a while to figure out that the underying doctrine is the same.
That is the case with with the East. Looking the other way with regard to
the canon has been the norm in the East since it was possible to do so, as the
Church maintains the truth and differing canons don't change what they
believe.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>With the SSPX, it's a bit different. "We have
reservations about V2" could mean a) "We reject what the council truly said and
did" in which case there is no hope; b) "We reject what we believe the council
to have said and done" in which case they need to decide between A and C; c) "We
accept the teachings of the council but we do not use the language used because
if we used the same words they would mean something heretical to us in our
language" in which case they're like the Eastern rites.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>It's going to take a while - probably years - till
they figure out what the situation really is, and rectify it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>What also needs to be separated is the doctrinal
component from V2 vs the pastoral vs the results of the council. The
doctrinal may not always be expressed in the same language, the pastoral may not
always be applicable to all situations, and the results, well, they must accept
the new Mass as valid, even if they don't use it, just as the Eastern Rites do,
but they're free to want communion on the tongue despite historical evidence
that this was not the earliest method, or to do away with this nonsense of
priests chattily explaining everything they do to the congregation, as if it
were the first time they ever went to Mass. Communion with one or both
species has had its advantages for different places and different times.
And certainly the creed must be reinstated, communion must not be by intinction
by the laity off the altar with the priest somewhere else, and God the Mother
and Father of us all must stop approving these peculiarities in our cathedral,
as well as stop the local bishop from promising female priests soon, and the
local priest from declaring Anglican priests to be the same thing as
Catholic priests, only with more women in their ranks.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>South Africa now appears to have two parishes with
regular Latin Mass in the extraordinary form, aside from the two SSPX groups
(one with their own chapel) that I know of. The cathedral in Johannesburg,
where the one non-SSPX Mass takes place, unfortunately looks like a shiny glass
barn.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>God bless,</DIV>
<DIV>Stephen</DIV></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=arthurkelly@yahoo.com href="mailto:arthurkelly@yahoo.com">Art
Kelly</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=apologetics@gathman.org
href="mailto:apologetics@gathman.org">Apologetics Group</A> ; <A
title=jmurf80@bellsouth.net href="mailto:jmurf80@bellsouth.net">Jim Murphy</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, January 26, 2009 12:39
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [Apologetics] Re:
MISCONCEPTIONS: What the “lifting” of the SSPX excom’s means for people</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top>
<DIV><FONT size=3>I hope this action is not premature.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3><SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"></SPAN>To lift the
excommunication when "further steps will be required to complete the
reconciliation of the SSPX" is worrisome.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3><SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"></SPAN>And I'd like to
know what Fellay meant when he wrote, "...we accept and make our own all
the councils up to the Second Vatican Council about which we express
some reservations."<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3><SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"></SPAN>The Church
accepts some diversity, i.e. the Eastern Rite churches, so maybe for the
greater good, we can "look the other way" on a few matters with the
SSPX.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#0000ff size=3>Art</FONT></STRONG></DIV><BR>---
On <B>Sun, 1/25/09, Dianne Dawson <I><rcdianne@yahoo.com></I></B>
wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid">From:
Dianne Dawson <rcdianne@yahoo.com><BR>Subject: [Apologetics]
MISCONCEPTIONS: What the “lifting” of the SSPX excom’s means for
people<BR>To: "Dianne" <rcdianne@yahoo.com>, "Apologetics Group"
<apologetics@gathman.org><BR>Date: Sunday, January 25, 2009,
1:09 PM<BR><BR>
<DIV id=yiv1293553990>
<STYLE type=text/css>#yiv1293553990 DIV {
MARGIN: 0px
}
</STYLE>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif">
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<H3 class=storytitle id=post-5648><A
href="http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/01/misconceptions-what-the-lifting-of-the-sspx-excoms-means-for-people/"
target=_blank rel=nofollow><FONT size=3>MISCONCEPTIONS: What the
“lifting” of the SSPX excom’s means for people </FONT></A></H3>
<DIV class=meta>CATEGORY: <A title="View all posts in SESSIUNCULA"
href="http://wdtprs.com/blog/category/sessiuncula/" target=_blank
rel=nofollow><FONT color=#990000>SESSIUNCULA</FONT></A> — Fr. John
Zuhlsdorf @ 2:27 pm </DIV>
<DIV class=storycontent>
<DIV>I am seeing a lot of confusion in the wake of the lifting of the
excommunications of the bishops of the <SPAN
class=caps>SSPX</SPAN>.<BR><BR>Let’s get some things
clear.<BR><BR><EM><SPAN class=caps>VERY LITTLE HAS CHANGED JURIDICALLY
</SPAN></EM>except in the status of <EM>those four
bishops.</EM><BR><BR>I hope that this has helped to change the
"atmosphere" surrounding these problems. <BR><BR>The "lifting"
of the excommunications is a first step in the long process that still
remains.<BR><BR><STRONG>Q: Is the <SPAN class=caps>SSPX</SPAN> now
legitimate?<BR></STRONG><BR>Not in a juridical sense, no. The
<SPAN class=caps>SSPX</SPAN> still does not have the approval of the
Pope or of a diocesan bishop. It is still a separated group,
though these days many prefer not to speak of
"schism".<BR><STRONG><BR>Q: Is it okay for the <SPAN
class=caps>SSPX</SPAN> bishops to ordain now?</STRONG><BR><BR>No. The
bishops of the <SPAN class=caps>SSPX</SPAN> are validly consecrated
bishops, but the fact remains that they were illicitly
consecrated. That hasn’t changed. They are still not
reconciled with the Bishop of Rome. They are still suspended
<EM>a divinis</EM>. They still have no permission to exercise
ministry in the Church. They may not licitly ordain. They
have no authority to establish parishes, etc.<BR><BR><STRONG>Q: Are
the chapels of the <SPAN class=caps>SSPX</SPAN> okay
now?</STRONG><BR><BR>Not in a juridical, legal sense, no. Many
good things can happen in one of those communities, but the <SPAN
class=caps>SSPX</SPAN> chapels are not, because of the lifting of the
excommunications, suddenly made legitimate. They are not
reconciled by this move. <BR><BR><STRONG>Q: Are the priests of
the <SPAN class=caps>SSPX</SPAN> in good standing
now?</STRONG><BR><BR>Not yet they aren’t. The priests of the
<SPAN class=caps>SSPX</SPAN> are still suspended <EM>a
divinis</EM>. They say Mass validly, but without the permission
of the Church, either from a faculty of the Holy See or the local
bishop. They do not have the necessary faculties to hear
confessions and give sacramental absolution except in danger of
death.<BR><BR><STRONG>Q: Is it okay to go to chapels of the <SPAN
class=caps>SSPX</SPAN> for Mass?</STRONG><BR><BR>Yes and no. It
is still not "okay" to go to chapels of the <SPAN
class=caps>SSPX</SPAN> if you are doing so out of contempt for the
Holy See or Holy Father, etc. If are are deeply attached to the
older form of Mass, and it is very hard on you to go without it, yes,
you can attend these Masses our of devotion. You can fulfill
your Sunday obligation still, because the 1983 Code of Canon Laws says
you do. <BR><BR>But the fact remains that these are still
chapels <EM>separated from unity</EM> with the local bishop.
<BR><BR>In my opinion, it is not a good idea to go to these chapels
exclusively except perhaps in very rare circumstances wherein there
really is no acceptable alternative.<BR><STRONG><BR>Q: Is it okay to
receive Communion at an <SPAN class=caps>SSPX
</SPAN>Mass?</STRONG><BR><BR>Yes and no. Yes… if you would
otherwise have to go without the Eucharist for a long time because you
are morally or physically impeded from receiving in a licit way.
No… if you are doing so because of contempt for the Pope, bishop, Holy
See, etc. <BR><BR>I don’t think it is a good idea to frequent
and receive Communion often in the chapels of the <SPAN
class=caps>SSPX</SPAN>. I think that undermines a person’s sense
of unity with the Holy Father and the local
bishop.<BR><BR><STRONG>Remember: The lifting of the excommunications
was a necessary step on the way to something
better.<BR></STRONG><BR>In his letter to followers of the <SPAN
class=caps>SSPX</SPAN>, Bp. Fellay reminded everyone that they prayed
that the older form of Mass would be derestricted, and it was with
<EM>Summorum Pontificum. </EM>He said there was a Rosary
campaign to aid the lifting of the excommunications. That
happened today. Bp. Fellay now says that we must pray that the
necessary talks with the Holy See can begin soon about theological
questions. Amen. Let us pray.<BR><BR>So… folks… don’t
suddenly get it into your head that all the problems with the <SPAN
class=caps>SSPX</SPAN> have suddenly been removed. Nothing has
changed about their status. What changed was the status of the
four bishops: they are no longer excommunicated, but they are still in
a state of separation from clear and manifest unity with the Holy
Father.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/01/misconceptions-what-the-lifting-of-the-sspx-excoms-means-for-people/"
target=_blank
rel=nofollow>http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/01/misconceptions-what-the-lifting-of-the-sspx-excoms-means-for-people/</A><BR> </DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000bf><EM><FONT face="comic sans ms">
<DIV><EM><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000bf>Like a deer
that longs for running waters so my soul longs for
you, O God.</FONT></EM></DIV></FONT></EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000bf><EM><FONT face="comic sans ms">Ps
42:1</FONT></EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><EM><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000bf
size=1></FONT></EM> </DIV>
<DIV><EM><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000bf
size=1></FONT></EM> </DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV></DIV><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>